Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946

Someone might want to get on this quick - BLP 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.

---

Hard to bring this up in any other way but these edits [1] [2] need to get oversighted and the user needs to be blocked or at least severely warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Also take a look at the user's talk page and somewhat older edits like these [3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Thanks for this catch, but please use Special:EmailUser/Oversight next time to report this instead of using ANI, as reporting it here can widely publicize sensitive information. The oversight team is quick to respond, and if it really needs to be temporarily revdeleted before oversight is possible, use IRC to flag an admin. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually didn't know about that link (more precisely forgot what it was). Feel free to remove this thread.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit clash: I've deleted the two edits linked to in the first paragraph above. (Hmm, for one of the pair, I think that I sleepily cited a reason that only oversighters are supposed to cite. If so, sorry about that.) I've given the editor a little break from editing hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, should one respond sceptically to the editor's claim that this graphic is his "Own work"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've suppressed everything that can be oversighted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Herblouise945 copyvio images

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

---

Herblouise945 (talk · contribs) has been uploading lots of low quality images of politicians lately. While a laudable goal, upon further investigation, most if not all of them appear to be screenshots from YouTube videos (see my CSD tagging of 12 of them thus far), despite the claims he makes as to source. Could an admin please look into this and take appropriate action? Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I was able to locate sources online for almost all of the images, they were screen shots from YouTube videos. I have warned Herblouise945 not to do this any more. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

186.137.92.237

The following discussion is closed. 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 IP is keeping on reverting at Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution without participating the TP discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Onision and disruptive edits

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

---

The article's subject has apparently posted a video requesting that fans "modify" Wikipedia. At least five usernames have been registered since that include "Onision" in the name, and several other recent registrations have been used to disrupt both the article and the talk page—the latter ongoing. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Excirial semied for a week and I added a month of PC to minimize any disruption when the semi comes off. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The TP seems to attract a fair number of fans, though. Some got warned, one got blocked for WP:NOTHERE. I suggest new accounts adding nonsensical edit-requests suffer the same fate. Kleuske (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I upped the semi to a month now to match the PC protection - I wasn't aware of the situation before but i suspect we might have a flood of PC edits to review otherwise. I also protected the talk page for a week since the meatpuppets were now flooding over there with "edit requests". Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Modesikuwasi repeatedly adding unsourced and probably false information to an article

On 18 Jan an IP added to the lede of the Mohammad Mossadegh article the claim that he is regarded as the "first and last father of Persian democracy."[4] I reverted because I'd never heard of Mossadegh being described as such and asked for a source. A different IP reverted, claiming they had fixed a typo, once again without a source.[5] The original IP restored the quote with a source, which doesnt actually contain the aformentioned quote within it. The account User:Modesikuwasi then repeatedly readded this unsourced quote to the article without any explanation.[6][7] I have tried to find a source for this quote with no avail. I even searched in Persian just in case, but found nothing. I'm fairly certain it's a quote this guy made up and thinks sounds cool. I left a message on his talk page asking him to explain why he was constantly readding this quote without a source. He ignored it and added the comment in again.[8] Could something be done? --Brustopher (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I may have to look more closely at this. There appears to be a source in the last addition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't load the website so I am inclined to take your word for now that the cited source does not contain the disputed claim until something solid can be produced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The URL had been specified incorrectly with "http://http://". I've checked the page, and the words "father" and "democracy" do not appear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries and talk page warnings from Carmaker1

Could some of this user's edit summaries and talk page contributions be reviewed please? I think they are not in accordance with WP:FAITH, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, therefore creating a hostile environment for other contributors.

Here are my specific concerns from recent edits:

• [9] Edit summary is aggressive and insulting
• [10] Edit summary dismisses someone's contributions as stupid
• [11] Edit summary disregards editors contribution on the basis of their previous edits
• [12] Edit summary accusation of "severe WP:VANDALISM", for an edit that does not seem at all malicious
• [13] Edit summary unnecessarily aggressive and accusers others of misleading readers (model year is a commonly used to date cars)
• [14] Edit summary is a personal attack.
• [15] Edit summary accuses other contributors of deliberately misleading readers
• [16] High level vandalism warning a minor disagreement about a fact, with no suggestion of malice in the edit [17]
• [18] As above, warning for this edit [19]
• [20] As above. Not a high level warning this time, but still no evidence of malice in the edit [21]

1292simon (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as someone probably in the same industry as Carmaker1 (IP may give it away...), he's technically right on all counts. He's being accurate on the real world timing as model years do not reflect calendar years. Eg, just about everything involving Model Year 2017 was baked in by late 2016 and all announcements/reveals/press releases were done last year. Rarely nowadays does a carmaker release a model year in the same calendar year. Only recent one I am aware of is the 2nd Generation Jeep Compass being actually released in 2017 (and that's due to internal delays). I believe he's getting exasperated explaining this over. And over. And over. 129.9.75.190 (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, even if it's technically incorrect, it's still pretty understandably a good faith mistake, and sheer volume of good faith mistakes isn't an exception to WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. TimothyJosephWood 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is rather interesting. As 129.9.75.190 so nicely explained, I am indeed exasperated, but it is still not an excuse to behave brashly. I do see that 1292simon only seems to be bringing this up, because of the warnings I left on their page and one edit summary. I will be honest and say that I was offended by the omission of insider information on design work that I contributed to the E90 and F30 BMW 3-Series articles by 1292simon, that would otherwise not be common knowledge nor even accessible to the general public most of the time (due to it sometimes being seen as privileged trade information).

Wikipedia guidelines understandably require, in-depth background information to be verified through cited sources, in order to avoid "original research". What I have encountered on-and-off for years (as both an engineering student and engineer), is the occasional resistance from a few editors (out of many that are pleasant) that are not willing to work with me and having their own hostile behaviour remaining unchecked by administrators. Whether it concerns music, geography, or automotive topics, I have always been particular about submitting information that is accurate to the best of my knowledge. What I do find odious and contentious is User: 1292simon's attempts to paint recent contributions of mine as 99% hostile (merely in response), which is somewhat dishonest and rather reaching. The only subjects of contention are my few edit summaries that highlight emotion. More than half of these given examples come across as deliberate mischaracterizations.

I am most focused on proving development information on every automobile page on Wikipedia, due to how information proliferates around the internet from here and can be a source on how each vehicle came to be. An accompanying model history also helps with this, as a useful reference for readers. The problem with submitting information with the proper citations, is how one keeps running into many dead links, as nowadays there seems to be a poor case of maintaining archives of old webpages or sources across the internet. Design and development is often hard to link to, sometimes relating to WP: PAYWALL or it not being linkable to a URL.

I am times exasperated with how poorly written, partisan text is used in articles meant to be encyclopedia pages and no one else seems to collectively fix these issues. Or better yet the fact, there are conflicting issues with many unregistered editors at times taking liberty to deliberately tamper with dates (for mysterious reasons unbeknownst to me) and tarnish the legitimacy of articles. The fact that between maybe User: OSX on occasion and User: Stepho-wrs helpfully catching these issues, it is much of the time myself having to revert such date tampering or correct existing misinformation, that often creates glaring contradictions in articles. When it becomes a tiring back & forth pattern that no one else is picking up on, and not even trying to put a stop to such vandalism or unintentional disruptive editing, it becomes an unnecessarily stressful ordeal to be fixing it by myself over and over. Especially when I discover these glaring errors or "bad changes" weeks to months down the road and no else bothered to intervene.

If you study the edit history of pages such as Infiniti QX80 and Nissan Armada, you'll see what I am referring to. The fact that I requested for page protection for both articles and it was denied, despite the edit histories showing significant abuses by IP-switching vandals, explains what some of us have to deal with in regards to being frustrated and overwhelmed. Many people from automotive forums and comment sections, as well as that of journalists in automotive media often, misrepresent vehicle timelines. Quite often, this is based on not-so-ironclad U.S. model years and often from inaccurately written timelines left uncorrected on Wikipedia. When a 2018 model year vehicle can go on sale January 2, 2017 and run through December 31, 2018, I do not want to be seeing text in an article that misleadingly describes that very vehicle as "Jaguar XX was introduced in 2018." The fact that I have tried to correct this problem and get ignored or receive little to no assistance often, can be frustrating when my useful contributions are reverted repeatedly. I agree very much in regards to WP: BITE, but I really do ask that administrators really take these vandalism issues seriously, as it makes contributing pointless if it keeps getting undone by the same parties endlessly.---Carmaker1 (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Carmaker1 - I have often felt exactly the same frustration. Americans live and breathe their model year system. To them, a car released or updated in October 1990 counts as the 1991 model year (generally, the 1991 model year is from mid calendar year 1990 to mid calendar year 1991). However, most of the the world does not follow this system and finds it counter-intuitive and confusing. The automobile project decided that calendar years is the best single system to use for an international encyclopaedia instead of US specific model years. Some American editors refuse to accept that someone might use a different system and insist on using US style model years. This is in-spite of politely pointing out that large parts of the world do not follow or even understand US model years. Like Carmaker1, I too have sometimes left acidic edit summaries out of sheer frustration. Sometimes it feels like one person (plus a very small number of helpers) against every single American editor.  Stepho  talk  13:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That was...a very long post. I'll admit that sometimes it would be nice if we could protect only portions of articles. However, if I'm not mistaken, in one sense I believe we can. In cases where these types of unhelpful edits are limited to infoboxes, instead of using Template:infobox automobile, I believe it's...not too difficult...to create a template specifically for, say Jaguar XX, so that the page would simply contain Template:Jaguar XX, which would display the infobox. So that anyone who wants to change dates will have to navigate to the actual template/doc, and change it there. That will probably be beyond the technical expertise of most well-meaning but mistaken newbies, and if it ends up being a case of intentional vandalism, protection can be requested for the template only, leaving the article open, which is overall a much lower bar to meet as far as "unintentional damage to the project by restricting newbies" is concerned. That's going to be extra work admittedly, but it's likely a more permanent type of work, and so much more likely to be worth it in the end.

Other than that, in cases of perennial mistakes, using <!-- hidden comments --> is usually a good first resort. It's fairly effective at dissuading good faith editors, and useful in providing evidence that bad faith editors are acting in bad faith.

It's good to be the type of person who can admit when they've just lost their cool, but we need to translate that into practical solutions, and these seems like they may be good first steps, depending on the levels and types of disruption. The last thing we want to do is turn away good faith editors, even if they're wrong, because ideally those will be the people in the trenches with you in a few months helping to maintain exactly these articles. TimothyJosephWood 14:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some American editors make the same changes to dates in the infoboxes, dates in section titles, dates in paragraph text and dates in image captions - making the template suggestion both awkward and impractical. One practical solution we put in place is to put months into the dates (eg Production: October 1990 – August 1995). Only the most die-hard follower of the US model year system changes that to model years 1991–1995. Sadly, there are diehard followers that do just that but thankfully only a few. Another practical solution we use is to say things like "In October 1990, for the 1991 model year, ..." in paragraph text. And once again there are a few die-hards that change it to "In 1991, ..." but most Americans seem to accept this, even if grudgingly.  Stepho  talk  14:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately niche subjects tend to attract niche vandalism...or...niche unhelpful editing as the case may be. In case you've never come across a genre vandal...and there have been a whole helluva lot of them, well, consider yourself lucky. Some users will come here and do nothing but mass change the genre of bands on scores of articles.

But at any rate, that's probably a discussion better suited for Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. As long as Carmaker1 recognizes that they were getting a little out of hand, and agrees to dial it back, and try to find ways to solve the problem, including leaving appropriate level warnings and using appropriate edit summaries, then I think we can probably start to shut down this thread. It's OK to be wrong, so long as you admit when you are and take steps to fix it. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Jvm21

• Jvm21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Casting JonBenet: vandalism after final warning; actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. User created Casting JonBenet with copyvio following level 4 warning. Doesn't care about copyvio Special:Diff/764888381, nor about the level 4, Special:Diff/762590727. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Cabayi (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

cut & paste from AIV as directed Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at their edits, Jvm21 can be abrasive but is clearly here to contribute. Copyvios haven't been brought up before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"but is clearly here to contribute" - I have my doubts. This user has been brought to ANI before about this very issue. In September he was blocked for continued failure to cite sources. Shortly after that block, he continued with this pattern, which I brought to ANI again. Which included this outburst. About a week ago, he continued to add a wave of unsourced film awards to articles (example). Again, I reminded him not to do this. Which resulted in this reply. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If editors want to block the user for personal attacks or continued disruption then that can be proposed. But Jvm21 is adding content to the encyclopedia in good faith. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content. Despite being told not to on multiple occasions. Which is disruption and the very thing he was originally blocked for. The article in question in this very topic contains more unsourced award additions by this user. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• NeilN, I've presented the evidence, I've copied it across as you requested, and it's still not good enough for you. Jvm21 is, as you say, abundantly guilty of "personal attacks or continued disruption". I'm not bothered what follows on for continued un-WP:CIVIL behaviour after the level 4 warning. I've drawn it to your attention. You may act as toothless as you wish. Just don't be surprised if Jvm21 continues to pour scorn on your work and takes licence to continue with the uncivil, uncollegiate behaviour. Cabayi (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Cabayi, your report at AIV stated that Jvm21 had committed vandalism after a final warning, was a vandalism only account, and was WP:NOTHERE - all of which are incorrect. Bringing the report here allows for community input on what should be done or an admin to block for something other than vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Such as continued disruptive editing despite being blocked for continued disruptive editing. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages

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

---

EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The User:EthiopianHabesha is being disruptive on multiple pages related to Ethiopia. I was advised to take this issue to ANI at the COI board [22] He wants to censor material that portrays Abyssinians in a negative light and just recently blanked reliable sources, added by another user [23] Previous dispute resolution attempts have failed due to users nationalisic outbursts and difficulty with the english language [24]. He also made what appears to be threats of nationalistic violence on a users talk page [25] Can something be done about this user. Duqsene (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I have found this editor to be problematic. I don't know whether the issue is primarily one of nationalistic combativeness or primarily one of lack of competence in English, although I see aspects of both, and which doesn't really matter. This editor attempted to state a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was unable to state a case that volunteers could work with. As noted, this is not a conflict of interest issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene, in COI I explained clearly, that what you have accused me of saying "Amhara people do not exist" is not actually what I have said [26][27][28]. In that noticeboard you did not provide one diffs to support your claim of me saying "Amhara People do not exist" yet you dedicated that section, based on a false accusation, to explain how Oromos are oppressed by Amhara nationalist[29]. Not that it matters, I do not even belong to Amhara neither Tigray ethinicgroup. Anyways, I am very sorry Robert McClenon did not comment about this clear false accusation. And also I have been accused of "nationalistic outburst", another accusation that is not explained clearly i.e. not supported by diffs and explained to me clearly for which nationalistic group (that the accuser can define it) am being accused of defending for. @Admins, most of my arguments deal with presenting contents in an impartial tone per WP:IMPARTIAL, and to convince the editors to comply with this rule then I had to make a long arguments with these editors whom had several sockpuppets used to disrupt Ethiopia related articles. Some of the sockpuppets I used to argue with that are now blocked includes Otakrem,Zekenyan and Blizzio and also some other IP sockpuppets. Although some try to convince their POV that does not make sense by bullying and intimidation I prefer to convince them by bringing neutral reliable sources, although neutrality of sources is not necessary, so that we edit collaboratively and by consensus. Finally, please note that I have a hard time to reach consensus with Duqsene on the article Sultanate of Showa [30][31]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand. However, whether we can understand each other is part of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, with respect what I was saying is: Duqsene in COI opened a section [32] claiming I have said "Amhara people do not exist" when I said it is not possible for Kingdom of Aksum (also known as Abyssinian Kingdom [33]) and Dʿmt to be ruled by Amharic Speakers because no linguist claimed for Amharic to exist before 1,000 AD. With respect please see Ethiopian semitic languages. Since no comment from you on this false accusation by Duqsene then I took it you also assumed I have said that and was wondering if you could please provide diffs. I will be very happy if we could focus on the content presented and there is no way I will accept Duqsene's argument if he could be able to provide one source, even if unreliable, showing me that Axum kingdom (Abyssinian kingdom) was ruled by Amharic speaking people also showing that the Abyssinian inhabitants of Axum kingdom spoke Amharic. That was what I was saying and I hope now it is clear. Thank you. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand. It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as @Robert McClenon notes, we have a problematic editor. @EthiopianHabesha either does not understand wikipedia policies or interprets it from a particular point of view. Some evidence of disruptive behavior of EthiopianHabesha in Ethiopia-related articles since November 2016:

• Slow editwarring to remove sourced content and WP:RS, to restore unsourced content: 1 2 3 4. See @Doug Weller's intervention and edit summary.
• @EthiopianHabesha misrepresents or misunderstands then repeatedly invokes WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BURDEN etc in order to remove reliable sources published by Cambridge University Press etc sources, with the comment, "choosing sources you have to be carefull [sic] because there are also writers who write for their own agenda such as for ethnic nationalism, secionism [sic], advocacy, propaganda, divide and rule". EthiopianHabesha has invoked these policies disruptively and to support above edit warring: 5 e.g.
• Arguing in circles while ignoring wikipedia content policies. See this question to @EthiopianHabesha by @Doug Weller, non-responsive was the response of EthiopianHabesha.
• Insists that they understand policies and know how wikipedia works, nevertheless: 6
• Puzzling hints on my talk page on "fit for fighting"

Outside of Doug Weller's attempts to explain wiki policies patiently since November 2016, we have had a DRN case too with @EthiopianHabesha. No progress at or after DRN despite Robert McClenon's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor exhausted my patience and time and I had to give up. His invocation of our acryonyms suggests to me that he is using them as tools without fully understanding them, which might be a competence issue. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to concur with User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Doug Weller that this editor has some sort of a competency problem, probably having to do with limited English, and that they should be advised to edit the Wikipedia in their first language, and that they need to be indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia because they have shown that they can't contribute constructively (even though we assume that they want to contribute constructively). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My limited involvement with this editor tends to support Robert McClenon's view. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins, please see the article I recently expanded and balanced: Ifat Sultanate article before it looks like this and now it looks like this. Here is the edit history. After the article is balanced, stories from all sides are presented and I beleive people were able to know new sourced information that they never known before. Based on my knowledge information disseminated by extrimists dominate while infromations disseminated by moderates and relevant experts on the topic which are written by highly educated neutral intellectuals who do not write for any agendas are usually avoided because their information is against extremists agendas. I am not defending any nationalistic group but here only just to let know wikipedia readers that there is also another information exists by sourcing contents based on wikipedia rule. If there are no editors who balances articles then wikipedia is likely going to be a tool used by editors who keeps on removing sourced contents which were added to balance views held by extremists. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: You have expanded the Ifat Sultanate article, but it suffers from the concerns Robert McClenon has mentioned to you several times over the last few months. I am delighted you added sources. But, the summary you added with this edit, for example, is not a faithful summary of pages 42-45 of the source, it is POV-y. It does not fairly or accurately summarize Pankhurst, rather your summary seems to filter out and reflect your concern above, "information disseminated by extrimists [sic] dominate while (...)". That is the persistent problem. The evidence repeatedly suggests that your aims here are not to build an encyclopedia according to community agreed content guidelines, but to fight and censor whatever bothers you by invoking acronyms such as WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. That you exhausted Doug Weller's patience, one of the most patient admins and policy-experienced contributors we have, is not a good sign. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, it would have been helpful if you could indicate the sentence you were talking about. I guess what you are talking about was the sentence begining with "Ifat was finally defeated by Emperor.....". Please see and it was added by other editors and was sourced with "The Glorious Victories, p. 107". The last paragraph was also added by other editors. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant the whole thing you added. See the link above. I have started cleaning up the copyvio, use of a source which copied wikipedia (which you did not add), etc. This is not that article's talk page. So let us skip it. It is irrelevant to the OP case filed by @Duqsene, or the issues raised above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha, you have said you want a "balanced" article several times on multiple pages, however your edits prove the opposite. This addition by you, which was corrected by Sarah, misinterpreted the citation to put the blame on Egyptians rather then Ethiopians/Amda Seyon. [34] Do you prefer it to be balanced only when Abyssinians are represented in a negative light? Duqsene (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins please please please save the Ifat sultanate article from being used to attack me. The recent edit made by Ms Sarah is just to prove my work is bad and now the scholars work is being paraphrased out of context. Out of the many, let me just explain one of them. When the source said the conflict was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan (by encouraging the Sultan of Ifat to seize the envoy of emperor Amde Tsion, while on his return from Egypt after giving a letter containing a threat) as can be seen here, in the article Ms Sarah added "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" as can be seen here (the second sentence under "Conflict with Christians" section). Ms Sarah again ignored the most important part of the letter sent to the Egyptian sultan saying Amde Tsion will "tamper the Nile" if he does not stop perscuting the Christians of Egypt as can be seen here, and this is not included but only the threat on neighbouring muslims (which I think is not the primary concern for Egypt) is included when tampering the Nile is the primary concern of Egypt (based on the scholars opinion) since without Nile there are no Egyptian people. This very important part of the letter was deliberately ignored by MS Sarah simply to show my work is bad, and if user is trying to improve the article then how is it fair to ignore this?

With respect, Ms Sarah Welch can you please clarify on:

1)Why you said "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" when the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan, contorary to this?

2)Why not include the primary concern for Egypt, tampering with the Nile, as explained in the source here and why make it look like as if the Egyptian Sultan is very much concerned with muslims of Ethiopia than the Egyptian people who can not live without Nile?

If there are no editors pointing out this kind of clear issues and debating with MS Sarah to convince one another then I am realy worried how Wikipedia articles are going to be. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha and Duqsene: I just started working on that article, am not done (EthiopianHabesha: please check the source again). If you have concerns, let us start a discussion on the article's talk page. This is not the right forum to begin discussing that article, by either of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the one I quoted was from your work finalised yesterday on 16 January and still today it is the same [35]. With respect, I think why did that is deliberately but not because you did not finalised editing that part. Thanks, EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the source said "Fear that the Ethiopians might tamper with the Nile was nevertheless to remain with Egyptians for many centuries"[36] clearly indicating that the Egyptian Sultan (who precipitated the conflict between the Christians and Muslims) was also worried this might be a reality, eventhough in todays scholars opinion Ethiopia did not have that technological capacity at that time. Why not also include this quotation in the inline citation which is just added today? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I will explain here, and let us discuss it further there please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I hesitate in supporting an indef ban for EthiopianHabesha, but something needs to be done given their conflicts with Duqsene and many others over many months. Perhaps we can start with a 3 month block from wikipedia, and 12 months sanction from Ethiopia-Somalia-Horn of Africa space articles, or something reasonable, and let the articles in this conflict-prone space to evolve. Perhaps we should also start an arb process, and add Ethiopia-Somalia-Yemen-Horn of Africa space articles under WP:ACDS. @EthiopianHabesha: Please do consider Robert McClenon's suggestion that you consider contributing to wikipedia articles in another language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:Ms Sarah Welch who recommends a time-limited block. I will point out that indefinite does not equal infinite, and will state that, in my opinion, an indefinite block is needed, that is, a block that continues until the subject editor can compose an unblock request on their talk page, in English, that can be understood as showing that they understand that the original block was for both poor English and combativeness. If we only give this editor a three-month block, it may be no different when they come off block. If we give them an indefinite block, and they request an unblock in good Commonwealth English in two weeks, that is even better (although I am not optimistic). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It might not be unreasonable to perhaps suggest to the editor that he seek some form of mentorship, preferably from someone who might know whichever language he is most familiar with, Ethiopian, Ge-ez, or whatever it is. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to any form of mentorship for this editor if the editor will agree to it. I will be satisfied if the mentor writes the unblock request and states the terms of the mentorship, as long as the unblock request is in what the community here considers to be standard written English. Unfortunately, I have found that combative who have a problem with their English are also combative about insisting that their English is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to these proposals. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards User:Robert McClenon's suggestion to block the user indefinitely. I feel User:Ms Sarah Welch's proposal of a time limit block will bring us back here, as the user still seems oblivious to his disruptive editing. Mentorship is a good idea, granted with a clause of strict following. Duqsene (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I support User:Robert McClenon's proposal to block the user indefinitely. JimRenge (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Inserting comment to prevent automatic archival. I think that different editors have different views as to how to deal with this editor, but I don't think that anyone just wants this thread archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

CommentLooking at this User's history, User has had prior Block. Has had Wall of Text debates with other users. Has edit warred(continues to do so in slow form now). In his wall of texts argues and throws much conjecture and/or threats of ethnic violence due to wikipedia edits. Fights tooth and nail to structure articles to his ethno-nationalist POV. There is more than just a language "barrier" here, there seems a consistent pattern of behaviour of as Robert McClenon noted of ""angry ethnonationalist editor" and "combativeness" (not a Direct Quote of Robert). These articles on the Horn of Africa will not get better if we permit such behaviour to continue not only with this user but the others who have participated in this wikipedia version of "ethnonationalism conflict".HarryDirty (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

HarryDirty, just want to let you know that the last time I got blocked I was dealing with a user who had several sockpuppets and was using them to edit war Zekenyan and Blizzio but still I did not pass the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. After a long discussion with the user in the articles talkpage user finally agreed to include the content [37] that he intially opposed. Also I have been dealing with other users such as Otakrem and Pulheec who had several sockpuppets and use them for advocacy against what they call "Amhara and Tigray domination". I use reliable sources (almost all written by neutral writers) from relevant experts to convince them, if possible, and make sure wikipedia articles are balanced and are written with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - user HarryDirty got blocked today [38][39] because user is a sockpuppet of Otakrem whom I used to have long arguments in the past. If there are no editors who watches and deal with these kind of editors (here to advocate) then it's likely they will come back and remove or add and disappear (In few days HarryDirty already has removed a lot of sourced contents [40]). Wikipedia needs editors from this region and one that knows the people, history and politics of Horn of Africa very well. When MS Sarah said "the conflict was triggered by Amda Sion" [41][42] contrary to what the scholar said [43], and when Ms Sarah left out one important part of the letter containing a threat (tampering with the Nile) [44] no other editor complained and if I did not, it's most likely readers would have got inaccurate information. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with JimRenge, Robert McClenon etc recommendation of a block. Unless admins have additional clarifying questions, it may be time to wrap this up, one way or other, and close this out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch User:Robert McClenon I do not believe this issue with User:EthiopianHabesha is being treated fairly. The lack of sufficient English skills should not come into play when the issue hasn't really got much to do with the edits themselves. We are dealing with Duqsene, which I still believe is Otakrem. A user that has so far made around 5 sock accounts. The last time I brought a case up about his supposed sock, it was successful. Either lock some of these pages in the HOA section or deal with the users correctly, because this user will keep on coming back with new accounts, so it isn't EthiopianHabesha that is really the issue here. Resourcer1 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by your comments here, you also blank citations [45] Red herrings and false accusations are not helpful. Duqsene (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Resourcer1: SPI allegations need to be handled in the appropriate forum, and if there is evidence you allege there is, let us establish it and have no qualms at Duqsene being blocked by SPI admins. AGF until then, and avoid casting aspersions. It is not just English-skills of EthiopianHabesha, it is their consequent editing and walls of text on the talk page that is the problem. Just look at the edit history of Amhara people and Talk:Amhara people. Also see notes of admin Doug Weller there and above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resourcer1 who looks to be an associate of EthiopianHabesha, is blanking citations multiple times on the Amhara peoples page. [46] [47]Duqsene (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• • We have agreed to block editor EthiopianHabesha, can admins intervene. Duqsene (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Support topic ban, oppose indefinite block, as follows:

• First, if the topic ban sticks the issue of NPOV editing will be resolved and a block will therefore lose any preventative quality.
• Second, if a block is imposed it will be vastly harder for EthiopianHabesha to prove their bona fides over time, sufficient that one day the topic ban may one day be lifted.
• And third, a block on top of a ban comes too close to WP:BITE, especially in a subject area with very few active editors.

I'll also add my voice to EEng's by asking that the next passing janitor put this glacial discussion out of its misery by assessing and applying the relevant consensus. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to other active cases

There is a related ARB case that just been filed by an editor who registered their account few days ago, on January 10 2017. EthiopianHabesha is one of the named parties. I am not sure if that ARB case will get accepted, how or if it impacts this case, but FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at that case (which has now been declined) and it seems quite complicated (I don't understand what the supposed libel issue is, for instance), so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick, but the claims being made about the applicability of BLP policy to large groups are reminiscent of a now topic-banned editor, Middayexpress, who used to make similar claims in this area. Robert McClenon might well remember the Middayexpress case, but for others, the final AN/I discussion that resulted in the topic ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Middayexpress eventually quit Wikipedia promising to recruit new editors from the Horn of Africa to carry on their work. Given the similarity of some of the arguments being made in this case to those employed by Middayexpress, it might be worth investigating possible links further. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not again!?! The Horn of Africa has been an area of battleground nationalistic editing for a long time. Unlike some other real war zones, it hasn’t gone to the ArbCom to have ArbCom discretionary sanctions imposed. However, I urge the community to deal with this particular combative English-challenged editor (EthiopianHabesha) without regard to other combative editors. (By the way, the ArbCom case hasn't been declined; it is still in the process of being declined.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - I'm not familiar with how ArbCom works, and took an editor's opinion that the case should be declined as a statement that it had been declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The other two threads about disruptive editing in the Horn of Africa area have been archived. Is there any intent to take any action on this thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I am wondering about that too. EthiopianHabesha has been inactive after January 24, but only after repeating some of the same behavior at Talk:Oromo people and the article. I am wading through the paperwork to petition adding Horn of Africa space to AC/DS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I would very much support the general principle of that idea. I have a little familiarity (only a little) with Ethiopia and the Oromo people, and they may well be one of the most politically controversial current topics related to that country, along with matters of how the Amhara and other groups have historically treated and regarded them. Having said that, I have no idea of how to exactly phrase a specific request for DS for the topic. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this -- late, as usual -- & as probably the one active Wikipedian who knows the most about Ethiopia & all of the potential problems for WP it poses I wish someone had dropped me a note sooner. All I can say at this point is wow. And admiration for @Ms Sarah Welch: & @Doug Weller: for trying to sort this matter out.

The problems with any Wikipedia article on Ethiopia will be as follows: (1) Lack of easily accessible information on many of the subjects; (2) potential ethnic/nationalist/religious disagreements (e.g., look at the article history for Demographics of Ethiopia & see how the numbers for the numbers of the Amhara & Oromo ethnic groups are routinely manipulated -- some folks in that country insist that the majority are & always will be the Amhara); (3) a large population who are just learning about the Internet; (4) a lack of understanding in Ethiopia of Western concepts such as "we can agree to disagree". (Yeah, #4 might sound racist, but having read much Ethiopian history I've found many disagreements over beliefs & ideology in that land tend to be settled not thru words or appeals to reason, but with fists, bullets, & extralegal measures.) In short, there be monsters & landmines here, & many people who might be attracted to improving articles on Ethiopia -- which is understandable, since it is a fascinating country rich in culture & history -- will find themselves getting their fingers burned not only by falling into an example of (2), but knowing little or nothing about it due to (1).

In the case of Oromo people, there is a lot of bad blood not only between the Oromo & the dominant Amhara & Tigray peoples, but the Oromo & other ethnic groups. Both sides have made some unsustainable claims about the other, & both sides have done some bad things to each other -- although the Amhara/Tigray have had the upper hand for the last 100-150 years. There are some errors & omissions in the article (I fixed one glaringly obvious one, which I suspect had slipped thru due to the edit wars ongoing), & once things have settled down a bit I'd be happy to provide some advice on how & where to improve the article -- with reliable sources. For example, if one has access to JSTOR one also has access to the invaluable Journal of Ethiopian Studies, which I didn't have before I grew tired of being the only contributor to articles on Ethiopia. (Another is Annales d'Ethiopie at persee.fr)

So @Robert McClenon:'s suggestion is quite reasonable. -- llywrch (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Question to @Llywrch:: I regret to say, given awareness of other controversial national topics like in China and Turkey, for instance, that there have been and still are a number of sources, including even in China academic journals, which might be considered pretty biased here. I have access to at least some books by Brill and (I think) some Ethiopian journals. I'm fairly sure the Brill books are reliable, but is there maybe a question regarding the real reliability of any of the Ethiopian journals here like there is in China and a few smaller countries? John Carter (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The easiest answer to your question would be that it's not relevant to WP:AN/I. But since it is a question Admins will need to know if discretionary measures are applied, I think it should be answered for reference.

First of all, there is practically no publishing industry in Ethiopia. I do own a few books published there, but they have been published in partnership with Western presses so I can't offer an opinion about the quality or reliability of books published in Ethiopia. As for academic journals published there, I have seen a journal of Ethiopian medicine (which can be found online), but I couldn't say how reliable its articles are since I know very little about medicine. In the area of journals on history, the two I mentioned above are very reliable.

Most Ethiopian academics are part of the Ethiopian diaspora, teaching at a university & publishing in North America or Europe -- so their reliability can be judged that way. There are two academics who work & live in Ethiopia that I am familiar with who are reliable: Bahru Zewde, who teaches at the University of Addis Ababa, & Richard Pankhurst, who has lived most of his life in Ethiopia & has written a library of books on that country. (The biggest problem I've encountered with Pankhurst's works is that he tends to reuse large parts of his earlier books in his later ones.)

Now if your question is about the Ethiopian news media, the answer to that is simple: Ethiopia is at the bottom of the list of countries in terms of press freedom, & in 2008 or 2009 went so far as imposing severe restrictions on NGOs about commenting on conditions inside that country. Many times, looking for information on contemporary events in Ethiopia, I could only find information in blogs or social websites -- which don't meet Wikipedia standards, despite my sense they told the truth. I did quote the official Ethiopian news sources for some details, but in a careful manner, & only about things I felt were verifiable, e.g. "ENA reports that the government opened a new hospital in this woreda" -- one could visit the site & verify if a hospital actually was built & opened; if not, well then it's clear the official news agency was lying.

I need to point out that this threatens to offer a simplistic view of Ethiopian government public relations. On one hand, in many cases the information I looked for simply did not exist: government websites were often little more than a series of IIS templates someone in the IT department uploaded during an afternoon & no one ever looked at again. Government ministers rarely had CVs available online, let alone official biographies. Ethiopian society still relies heavily on oral sources of information -- with all of its weaknesses -- which means there is no reliable sources for facts or assertions that are commonly accepted as true. On the other hand, I found the website of the Central Statistical Agency, which handles the Ethiopian censuses, very professional & surprisingly accurate when you consider what they had to work with; I fully trust their census reports, which I used as much as possible in the relevant articles.

To repeat myself, the information about is often incomplete, very uneven in quality, & requires some experience to not only find but understand & use. And I haven't even touched on the countless rivalries that permeate that country, which can lead the involved parties to lie; fortunately, many of those are not very sophisticated in their misrepresentations & can be caught in their lies. (On the other hand, I found several people with personal ties to Ethiopia understood very well how to participate on Wikipedia & were very constructive editors. I only wish I knew how I could have retained them.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• It'll soon be a month since this thread began. Is this going anywhere? EEng 05:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Eventually, yeah. Ethiopia as a broad topic is, more or less, as Llywrch indicates above, a bit of a mess, and we are trying to find some ways to resolve it. Understandably, however, with such a big mess (about 100 million people and 80 ethnic groups in the country) it can reasonably take a while to resolve. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Several of the editors who were the subject of this and other AN/I discussions regarding editing of Horn of Africa articles seem not to have edited since late January. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on the glacial time scale of this thread that's just an eyeblink. EEng 19:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I just wondered whether it could be a deliberate strategy to avoid further scrutiny, and thought it was suspicious that several editors all stopped editing at around the same time. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder who the user Kraker234 (talk · contribs) is, who just tried to close this discussion? Paul August ☎ 18:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

Well, in any event this thread is one month old today. Happy anniversary! Shall we have cake now, or have a combined Valentines Day celebration tomorrow? EEng 12:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks more and you may as well have gone to Arbcom. For the half-dozen people still watching, how do you feel about a topic ban without the indef block? They appear to have suspended their editing anyway, and a topic ban might address the specific POV problem while still letting them improve their editing skills elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I support that. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No objections to an indefinite topic ban, which I'm guessing is the proposal. If, in time, the problematic editor returns, he or she can edit elsewhere to establish their good name, and/or appeal the ban at some point if circumstances warrant such. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'd support that too. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging everyone else who contributed to this thread: In the interests of wrapping this up, how would you feel about the compromise outcome of an indefinite topic ban from all edits relating to the Horn of Africa (including, obviously, Ethiopia and Somalia), without the concurrent indefinite block?

Pings: @Buckshot06:, @Duqsene:, @Ms Sarah Welch:, @JimRenge:, @Llywrch:, @EEng:, @Robert McClenon:, @Paul August:, @EthiopianHabesha: -- Euryalus (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me. For a SPA, the difference between a topic ban and an indefinite block is a distinction without a difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Paul August ☎ 01:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support JimRenge (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• No opinion because I haven't absorbed the thread. I was just lighting a fire under people to get things moving, which I guess I did. EEng 02:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

My topic was closed by an abusive editor with privileges

The following discussion is closed. 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 topic can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#.22Reliable_Sources.22_are_given_too_much_power_through_Wikipedia_Policy

Someone locked my topic simply because they disagree with what I'm saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.178.88 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest it again. You need to drop the stick now. You were told by a number of editors in that section your linked to do so. Not just one, but multiple editors. No one was "abusive" or abused their privileges. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think someone who participated in the discussion should close a discussion. You can just stop replying if you don't want to continue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering that the IP has edit-warred to retain a section with a title that constitutes a personal attack and has completely failed to notify the editor they are attacking, may I please request a swift boomerang so we can get past this? Sir Joseph, I think the editing history of this page and the actual nature of the discussion there shows that simply no longer responding is not going to settle this. Some discussions need to be shut down, and there is no policy stating that involved editors cannot do so when it obviously needs to be done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I begin to lose sympathy when someone starts a fruitless conversation that is closed, then starts a fruitless conversation about the closure of their fruitless conversation which is closed, and then comes to ANI to make a fruitless complaint about... well... you get the picture. TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the conversation was originally moved, not closed. But you tried... 104.148.178.88 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Funny... It sure looks closed to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was moved to the proper section... There is a fundamental difference 104.148.178.88 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was closed with the message that you are complaining in the wrong place. The fact that you then started complaining in the right place is immaterial to that fact. The fact that you feel the need to debate every detail is, actually, material to my request to the admins above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I do recommend that the IP watch their language here and the personal attacks, but I will also say that I feel the discussion was closed down prematurely by someone involved. The situation about WP and our RSes in today's state of journalism is a serious issues that needs to be discussed, and shutting down these discussions seems a way to avoid that, particularly when more editors beyond the IP got involved. (I note I did participate so it would absolutely be wrong of me to re-open it). --MASEM (t) 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a collegiate discussion going on between me and North8000, which was the only redeemable part of that thread, and I for one am more than happy to pick up in a new thread (or leave it be entirely, as the case may be) without the argumentativeness of the IP editor interfering with that discussion. I wholeheartedly endorse the close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) It looks to me like the IP has a couple of legitimate beefs here. Not that @Jytdog: was abusing, but that as a participant he shouldn't be closing the conversation. And that calling infowars a "fake news" site in the Pizzagate conspiracy theory article is not quite right, even per the cited sources. The sources do list infowars in a table of 'fake news' (their scare quotes) sites to avoid "if you want the facts", but they also characterize it more finely than that, as "Includes a mix of conspiracy theories and real news" on the Daily Dot, and "Propaganda" on USNews. These are a little different from what most sources usually mean by "fake news", and it wouldn't hurt to clarify that in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The closure wasn't due to the IP's contention that Infowars is not fake news (I agree with the IP on that point, actually), but due to the fact that the IP was attempting to undermine the value of using reliable sources for our content. That's an argument that is not going to get anywhere. It's not only nonsensical to suggest that our policy wrt this is a problem, it's mind-bogglingly ridiculous to imply that there's any other way of sourcing our content. I mean, seriously. The IP's argument was based in a form of hard solipsism and an extreme form of philosophical skepticism. Their argument boils down to (though I doubt it was thought through to this level) the bald-faced assertion that we can never know the truth about anything. Frankly, it was nothing but a giant waste of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I added one comment at the very end of the thread, so I guess I would qualify as "involved" myself, but, honestly, based on what I had read in the thread, I might have closed it myself. There is a question whether the person involved should have, Jytdog, but I think that there is far less question as to appropriateness of closing the thread. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My argument is based around the fact that there is legitimately biased information on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with philosophical skepticism. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And your argument seems to be one that you are completely unwilling to drop the stick about. Under such circumstances, I believe that should further rather pointless repetition of arguments continue, there might be not only grounds for closing this thread here, but perhaps at least consideration of sanctions at the IP editor apparently engaged in tendentious editing as per WP:TE. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I will gladly drop the stick when MjolnirPants stops misrepresenting what I've said. Dropping the stick works both ways... 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your inability to comprehend the implications of your own claims doesn't in any way reflect on the way I've characterized them. If I've been mischaracterizing them, one would expect you to have corrected me, but instead, you just keep saying that I'm mischaracterizing your arguments while you repeat them ad nauseum in the face of multiple editors explaining just how incredibly illogical they are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(e-c) Actually, I do not believe that it is necessarily your call and your call alone regarding when others should drop the stick, and I get the impression from this thread and that earlier thread that you have been advised regarding that often enough that there might be grounds for sanctions should they continue. Also, you seem to confusing your basis for starting this later thread, which was criticism of Jytdog for closing the earlier thread, with your argument with MjolnirPants, which is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to reread my posts on this topic. I never mentioned MjolnirPants until he mentioned me first. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, if that doesn't prove just how poorly you're reading/comprehending what's being said to you, I don't know what does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I really don't care enough to argue with you lol 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Maury Povich says the lie detector test are in and... That was a lie. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course I care about Wikipedia, but I've realized that this argument specifically between us will never go anywhere and it's better to just stop wasting both of our time. I appreciate the debate. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest boomerang - Editor clearly is refusing to get the hint. Wikipedia policy is very, very, very clear about what qualifies as reliable sourcing. This argument is being prolonged unnecessarily, for no other reason than to just argue.--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• I suggested a boomerang in my first comment, in case this is not clear due to the crooked wall of text which followed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how much good a boomerang would do in this situation considering the history of the IP here includes only 2 edits to Fascism, a few to pizzagate, the now closed discussion at WT:RS, and this thread. Having said that, no objections to one, or to someone closing this thread as a fairly clear instance of tendentious editing. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Boomerang...or just close. Doesn't really make a difference to me. TimothyJosephWood 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose boomerang, re-open the discussion - I have read all of the thread linked in the OP, but not any precursors. A key statement was made by the OP: "You're right in the sense that I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of Wikipedia's editing policy." That being the case, the OP cannot know whether they are opposing the policy or the editors who do not apply it correctly, and the ways to deal with the two are completely different. I suggest to the OP that they should gain more policy knowledge and experience before taking on these weighty issues. But they have been debating in good faith, intelligently, and without personal attack, so they should be allowed to continue as long as anyone cares to debate with them. They cannot be disruptive of a discussion that they themselves started, and server resources are not in such short supply that we need to shut down non-disruptive debate that some (or even most) consider pointless. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

But they have been debating in good faith, intelligently, and without personal attack The first two conditions are arguable, and the last clearly false. Have you looked at the title of this thread? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

An overstatement no doubt made in frustration, which the OP might wish to correct. In my experience such things (and far worse) are routinely forgiven when the circumstances are considered. If the discussion shouldn't have been shut down, we forgive the somewhat emotional response to that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As is clear from a reading of the discussion, the IP's contention is that our policy on reliable sources amounts to an endorsement of factually incorrect information because we like the sources. The editor also refuses to read/understand/accept any response which points out the failings of this, repeatedly asking me and others to justify WP being wrong about things which he asserts WP is wrong about, and asking us to defend using information we know is inaccurate. I fail to see any possible benefit to WP which could arise out of such a discussion. The editor is either unwilling or incapable of understanding the responses they have gotten, or the epistemological connotations or philosophical basis of their own arguments. I'm more than happy to help an editor understand why WP works the way it does, but when I explain it clearly and their response is to accuse me (and WP in general) of intentionally endorsing false claims, there's nothing to do but stop them from causing further drama through whatever means necessary.

To that end, the IP editor seems to have stopped for now. So now, we're left discussing all the myriad connotations of their arguments in a way that wouldn't have been a problem if we'd just closed the thread and left it at that without dragging it out at ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see any possible benefit to WP which could arise out of such a discussion. -- Right, I get that you're one of those who consider the discussion pointless, yet for some reason can't walk away from it. If all editors agree with you, the OP will be left to debate with themselves and the thread will be archived for lack of activity. If not, the majority has no right to tell the minority what they are allowed to discuss. In my opinion a thread improperly closed is exactly what ANI is for; if you can suggest a better venue or approach, I'm all ears.
If the OP repeatedly edits against clear consensus, etc, etc, that's an entirely different matter. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're discussing an editor's right to speak non-disruptively. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To add to Mandruss' complaint, I believe this is a topic that would potentially led a disruptive change for the better at Wikipedia if discussion were allowed to continue, but mayn editors see the initial "disruptive" nature as troubling and immediately want to shut the door on it (for a myriad of possible reasons). That's human nature to shut down anything that requires massive change, but we can't be so quick to close down the discussion, even when the IP is angry or perhaps canvassing for answers once others have joined in. Certainly there are perennial proposals that have been discussed so many times that we know there's no route for adaption, so shutting down arguments in that case make sense. But this example certainly does not fall into any PEREN case. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If either of you can come up with a policy proposal in which we drop our reliance on reliable sources entirely (which is the IP's contention) and replace it with ... something... which even has the potential to make WP more accurate, I'm all ears (seriously: good luck with that lol). If either of you want to discuss the particulars of our policy, as North8000 and I were doing briefly, again; I'm all ears. But don't sit here and try to act like I'm advocating shutting down a discussion because I disagreed with the OP. That's just some bullshit. Oh and the reason I keep responding? I enjoy it. That doesn't make it productive. And don't try to blame the continuation on me, either, because I see both of you continuing the discussion you're disparaging me for continuing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I take no position on the content policy issues, which are completely separate from the question of whether that thread should have been shut down, the legitimacy of this ANI complaint, and any boomerang proposals. Also, you seem to conflate the closed discussion with this one, and again they are completely separate issues. Finally, no one is "blaming" or "disparaging" here, no one is "act[ing] like [you're] advocating shutting down a discussion because [you] disagreed with the OP". I can only suggest that you re-read what we have said, more calmly and less defensively. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

no one is "blaming" or "disparaging" here Please explain to me the purpose and implications of "Right, I get that you're one of those who consider the discussion pointless, yet for some reason can't walk away from it" if not to imply without stating outright that the disruption is at least partially my fault (which is a disparaging remark). It's okay to disparage me, by the way. This forum is for the purpose of disparaging others in a way that turns out to benefit WP, and if you think my involvement is detrimental, you should disparage me for it. But don't deny that you're doing that.

Also, I'm not upset in the slightest, I'm enjoying this quite a bit, as I just pointed out. But the fact you seem to be missing is that the reason the thread was shut down was due to the content. The propriety of any closing hinges upon the content of the closed thread. So you can't tell me that the close was improper without implying (perhaps not intentionally, but still) that the content was legitimate. Now, I admitted above that there was some legitimate content, however little, in the closed thread, but I also pointed out that this legitimate content could easily be forked off into a new thread. Which is what should have happened. Instead, the IP created a thread here which attacks another editor in the title, without notifying that editor, then edit-warred with me and an admin to keep this thread here. At which point a few editors have joined in to prevent the swift closure of this thread.

Now, I'm enjoying this, as I've said before. I'm happy to keep going. But I'll also be the first to admit that nothing helpful is going to come of this. If you would like to come with me over to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources and have a nice discussion about the weaker points of our policy as it currently exists, I'm all for it. I think you might be surprised to learn that I, too have a few problems have with the way policy is currently worded (and thus, implemented) that I would love to see hashed out. Or we can continue going round in circles here, taking up enormous amounts of space at ANI (Note: nobody's worried about server space, but huge walls of text make this page very difficult for us squishy humans to navigate effectively) and keeping me entertained. I'm okay with the latter, but again: it's just not productive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, if telling someone you feel they are in the wrong is "disparaging", you've been doing a lot of "disparaging" yourself, and "disparaging" is an instrinsic element of any dispute. I'm not going to continue this with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, if telling someone you feel they are in the wrong is "disparaging", you've been doing a lot of "disparaging" yourself, and "disparaging" is an instrinsic element of any dispute. Umm, thank you for rephrasing what I said, but I don't think you really grasped my meaning, as you felt the need to dictate it back to me as if I were unaware of it. I assure you that I was aware of the meaning at the time I said it, and still am. You might notice I didn't say anything about whether you should speak your mind, only that the implications of what you were saying were wrong. The thing I advised you not to do was to act like the content of the discussion was immaterial to whether or not the closure was improper. I might once again point out that there's no policy which states that closures must be made by uninvolved parties, and WP:CLOSE focuses on the closures of deletion discussions. With informal discussions like the one in question, there are no community-established guidelines governing closures. There have been attempts to get such a policy put in place, but they could not gain consensus due to the community's awareness of situations like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The thing I advised you not to do was to act like the content of the discussion was immaterial to whether or not the closure was improper. - It was, which is my entire point and position. Again, the majority does not get to dictate what the minority discusses, when there is no disruption occurring. Again, if you don't see a point to a discussion, walk away from it. Disagree if you like. Better yet, show me a policy or guideline that says I'm wrong. Barring that, we have now achieved circularity, which is when I get off. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, the majority does not get to dictate what the minority discusses, WP:TPG was established by consensus so... You're wrong. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to point out the part of TPG that says someone can shut down a non-disruptive discussion because they feel it's a pointless waste of other editors' time. I'm fairly certain it does not exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen, if someone wants to revert the closure, then revert the closure, especially if they think they can contribute something that will make it more than the daily "why don't you give equal treatment to social media and tabloids as you do the lame-stream-media" dead-end conversation. It's really not that big of a deal. I'm sure @Jytdog: isn't one to go to hell and back over something so petty. If we're going to revert a closure for purely bureaucratic reasons to reach a foregone conclusions through a differing but equal route, then leave it alone, and stop wasting everyone's time. Either way, it's not something that requires ten pages of ANI debate. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP making the complaint seems to have not said anything in the last 15 posts, counting this one, to this thread. Maybe we could just all take a break until and unless he comes back? John Carter (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hey "The Process Must Be Exactly Followed" Mandruss: I was not notified of this thread. Also, if you really believe that either a) the discussion at WT:RS has a good chance of producing change to RS (the main purpose of WT:RS) or b) the IP was asking authentic questions and was actually listening to the answers (the other purpose) -- then by all means revert me. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  @Jytdog: Unresponsive to my argument, sidesteps the issue as I see it. I'm going to decline your invitation to incite an edit war over that close. You should address my argument or remove the close yourself. If you have no p&g basis for it, withdraw it; that's a core Wikipedia principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• While I agree the process should be followed, the thread was started by the IP and Mandruss came in about three hours later. I don't see he necessarily deserves blame here - I probably deserve more, having commented before he did. I guess none of us bothered to look to see if you were notified, @Jytdog:, and I guess for that you deserve apologies from all of us. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion is whether the conversation should be reopened. If you think it should, then do it. You've been invited twice. If not, then there's nothing else to discuss it seems. TimothyJosephWood 00:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, notifying editors that their behavior is under discussion is mandatory and your failure to ensure that was done, here in this discussion in which you have so avidly participated, just cuts the ground out from under your stickler arguments. Listen, I followed IAR. The IP wasn't listening and it became clear that the thread was just disruption. If i had even a shred of belief, based on what they wrote there and at Talk:Pizzagate, that the thread wasn't just IDHT battering to get the source treated with more respect in WP, I wouldn't have closed it. Again, if you really believe that the discussion there was authentic, then please revert me (my saying that means i won't re-revert). Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done [48] - For the third or fourth time, there was no disruption because there was nothing to disrupt. As for notification, that was the OP's responsibility and they were wrong to omit that. If you wish to seek a sanction for that failure, go right ahead, but that's independent from the close question. It's more than a little ridiculous to say that every editor who participates in an ANI complaint is required to go verify that the defendant was notified. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, have fun I guess? Everyone knows that conversation is going nowhere. Just another in the endless series of complaints that Wikipedia listens to reliable sources instead of random editors. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

You are displaying racism!

Both Xenophrenic and Jobas have been blocked for severe edit warring by Fram. Xenophrenic has been blocked for a week, Jobas for 24 hours. At this point, the conversation has reached it's zenith and it's best to close this discussion as it is creating more heat than light. I don't see a need for any other actions at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I'm posting this request on ANI not to request blocks or other punitive actions requiring admin tools, but just to solicit some assistance and advice with the hope that if it comes from an admin it might be taken more seriously.

In a nutshell,

• (1) I've been accused by a fellow editor of improperly "canvassing users with my POV" to a deletion discussion, and I find that offensive (here is my non-targeted canvass message); and more significantly,
• (2) I've been called a racist, which is outrageous and completely unacceptable. (Here is the diff of the comments.)
• (3) These personal attacks took place not on an Admin noticeboard (which is the appropriate place to make these assertions) or on a personal User Talk page (where I'm much more tolerant of people ranting at me, as long as we can have a dialog about it), but at a public community discussion with, in my opinion, the intent of poisoning those discussions.

I've tried removing and replacing the personal attacks with the (Personal attack removed) template per WP:TPO, but he repeatedly re-inserts them in the community discussion. I've asked him to bring his allegations here to ANI, with evidence, but he ignored my suggestion. I've tried opening a dialog on his User Talk page to discuss his concerns, which was ignored and deleted. Now I am asking an Admin to review the situation and then clearly convey to User:Jobas that personal attacks of this nature are not okay, and if he has concerns about a fellow editor, he should raise them at the appropriate noticeboard in the future.

Context by way of full disclosure: there is already some friction here, as I am a co-nominator in this deletion discussion of a category created by User:Jobas. And I've already been critical of Jobas for pinging at least 5 other editors (known to be in disagreement with me in related matters) to the discussion in violation of our canvassing policy. Thanks in advance for any assistance in this matter, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• User:Jobas has been notified of this report on his Talk page.

I'm afraid that you might get Wikipedia:BOOMERANGED here Xenophrenic. It's pretty convenient that you opened this thread directly after I alerted administrator User:EdJohnston of the fact that you refactored the comments of several editors. I'll explain the situation for everyone to evaluate. As stated by the administrator User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. User:BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) admonished User:Xenophrenic that this was very inappropriate and asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request):

But what you are not entitled to do us to simply empty it and then say "let's delete that empty" category ... because that way, other editors do not know what was in it. It's fine to remove a few miscategorised articles, but when your starting point is that you think that the whole category should not exist, that removal amounts to backdoor deletion without consensus. That's why I and @Marcocapelle both asked you to repopulate. Please do so, or I will simply go through your contribs list and rollback the relevant edits ... and that may also rollback other changes you made to the same articles. Once the category is restored, feel free to open a CFD nomination for deletion. Make your case and see where consensus lies. --BrownHairedGirl

It should be noted that User:Xenophrenic was recently blocked for attempting to blank an entire section of an article relating to the same topic, agressively edit warring to reinstate his preferred (and censored) version of the article. His unblock request was appropriately declined by administrator User:Huon (it might be helpful to view extensive block log). Now, on the deletion discussion that User:Xenophrenic opened, User:Xenophrenic repeatedly refactored and openly deleted the comments of those who disagreed with him. For example, this diff provides just one (out of many) examples in which User:Xenophrenic removed the comments of others who thought differently than he did (in this case see that User:LoveMonkey's and User:Eliko007's comments) were deleted. Another example includes User:Xenophrenic deleting a concern that he WP:CANVASSED several editors to the discussion, in addition to his previous edit warring with User:Ramos1990 (see diff). When these individuals tried to restore their comments, User:Xenophrenic simply reverted them, although User:Marcocapelle told him this was inappropriate. With regard to User:Xenophrenic's racism and prejudical comments, there are many. In one example, User:Xenophrenic wrote the following personal attack:

Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? --Xenophrenic

My user page indicates that I have Arab Christian heritage (a minority in my region) and it was obvious that User:Xenophrenic used this to mock me. I will let the rest of the evidence speak for itself, Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that the last quote provided directly above looks like a perhaps really cheap shot by Xenophrenic, and that such do not help reduce the complaint of racism, although I don't think it in and of itself maybe necessarily qualifies as anything other than a cheap opportunistic shot. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

John, please read that quote in context (see the text box just below), and then revise your comment if you see fit. There is certainly no racism or heritage mocking, and the curt snark you sense was in response to Jobas' repeated assertion that I had not cited any sources after I had referenced at least a half-dozen. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This one is going to be messy. I think Jobas overstepped the line with his accusation of racism. And I also smell some WP:CANVASSING on the part of both Jobas for the ping and Xenophrenic for his obviously selective notification of the ATHEISM board. I was pinged to the deletion discussion and chose not to directly involve myself because the ping might be construed as canvassing as well as my previous, and less than pleasant interactions with Xenophrenic. There is quite a bit of history here that covers more than just this CFD discussion. Jobas and Xenophrenic have been going at it on a number of different threads. IMO both have shown some symptoms of WP:AGENDA oriented editing. I am concerned that Jobas may be here to right great wrongs while Xenophrenic seems to be on a mission to expunge from the project any suggestion that atheism had a role in the great religious persecutions of the last century or so. [Full disclosure: I notified several WP:PROJECTS of the existence of the CFD discussion including SKEPTIC, HISTORY, CHRISTIANITY, CATHOLICISM and ORTHODOXY.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Tend to agree with most of what Ad Orientem says above. A single notice on an article talk page, which is what Xenophrenic links to, under the circumstances, is probably insufficient for these purposes and certainly hints at selective notification/canvassing. I also have gotten a definite impression from X and a few others on the CfD page that at least some of the comments made there regarding the deletion are perhaps more driven by self-described atheists or nonbelievers to "clear their name" than perhaps by rigorous application of policies and guidelines. I seem to remember discussions of this type regarding various articles or other forms of content relating to this topic as well. Personally, I might favor having a broad based RfC or maybe having ArbCom appoint a board to review the matter of a lot of our "religious persecution by group foo" or "persecution by foo" content rather than selecting one out of the number for specific consideration. And I note that there are also, at this time, similar categories for Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Muslims (as per Category:Religious persecution), which somehow, despite the obvious similarities of topics, were somehow not considered in consideration of the current CfD. Strikes me at least as a little odd. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

some of the comments made there regarding the deletion are perhaps more driven by self-described atheists or nonbelievers to "clear their name" than perhaps by rigorous application of policies and guidelines. --John Carter

John, I think your bias is showing. You do realize Jobas and I are both Christian, right? Some editors, unfortunately, make it a point to heavily incorporate that into their Wikipedia editing about subjects concerning "the other" groups. I've seen comments which might indicate a person's position, but I don't let that influence my editing here. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User:John Carter, what's specifically troubling is that Xenophrenic emptied Category:Persecution by atheists but then added Category:Persecution by Christians (edit diff) to other articles, such as Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, as if the genocide of American Indians was somehow directly a cause of Christianity. I went ahead and undid all of Xenophrenic's removals of Category:Persecution by atheists until the CfD discussion (and hopefully an ArbCom discussion) is resolved about all the categories pertaining to religious persecution. This is in accordance with the recommendation of a sysop, BrownHairedGirl. I'd watch out for Xenophrenic edit warring to remove them again since he has a history of doing that. Eliko007 (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Eliko007, that false assertion of yours has already been refuted on your Talk page. Are you of the opinion that if you keep repeating it, it will magically become true? Quoting from your Talk page:

Xenophrenic has not "added Category:Persecution by Christians to some articles". Persecution by Christians was added to that article by Mateoski06, with whom Jobas has been edit-warring over that category for some time. The category did get re-inserted into the article as part of larger rollback or revert edits I made, but I never added it to the article. Painting the situation inaccurately as an effort by Xenophrenic to remove one category while adding another catetgory, is not appropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Since I was pinged here as having declined to unblock Xenophrenic: When I reviewed that unblock request, the block had already run out, and the decline was entirely procedural. No opinion on the current dispute; haven't looked into it. Huon (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BOOMERANG, if an Admin decides to unnecessarily advise me, instead of Jobas, not to call fellow editors racist - it will be wasted words. As for most of the comments above, I realize we've entered a Post truth era, but I naively hoped Wikipedia editors wouldn't surrender themselves to it so thoroughly. Let's examine the comments more closely.

• Alternative fact: you opened this thread directly after I alerted administrator User:EdJohnston --Jobas

Reality: No, I saw your note to Ed, and I even responded there. Then you again re-inserted your personal attacks into the deletion discussion, with an edit summary that promised "i will raise the issue". But instead of raising the issue, you resumed editing elsewhere - so that is when I raised the issue here for you.

• Alternative fact: you refactored the comments of several editors. --Jobas

Reality: No. I replaced personal attacks as defined at WP:NPA with the (Personal attack removed) template, which was completely appropriate. (Oh, and I moved a question addressed to the nominator -intact- into the "Questions for nominator" section to reduce confusion.)

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. --Jobas

Reality: Many editors removed the problematic category from articles (not just me - [49], [50], etc.) resulting in an empty category, which Marcocapelle (again, not me) nominated for deletion (see nomination [51], [52]). I reluctantly joined the deletion discussion later, after BrownHairedGirl had talked me out of nominating it for deletion. (See the actual discussion here at BrownHairedGirl's Talk page where I "struck" my intent to delete the category.)

• Alternative fact: BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) ... asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request) --Jobas

Reality: Xenophrenic did better than roll back his few edits, he listed and linked every article previously tagged with that problematic category, to address Marcopelle and BrownHairedGirl's concerns. (See the actual discussion here at BrownHairedGirl's Talk page.)

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic was recently blocked for attempting to blank an entire section of an article relating to the same topic --Jobas

Reality: Xenophrenic never "blanked an entire section"; he simply moved a problematic addition of content to the Talk page for collaborative discussion and improvement (see the edit summary of the move here). The discussion of that completely intact content is still here. I was blocked for simple perceived "edit warring" by an admin who was privately pinged to the article, but wasn't informed of the agreement between editors to leave the article in a pre-edited state (per WP:BRD) until concerns were resolved. That admin and I had agreed via email to take his block action to a public Review, before he abruptly retired under a cloud of other allegedly problematic admin actions.

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic repeatedly refactored and openly deleted the comments of those who disagreed with him ... Xenophrenic removed the comments of others who thought differently than he did --Jobas

Reality: Xenophrenic didn't refactor or delete any comments, he only replaced blatant personal attacks with a {{rpa}} template, and requested that editors instead raise such concerns at WP:ANI. A quick check of the diff provided by Jobas will confirm this.

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic simply reverted them, although User:Marcocapelle told him this was inappropriate --Jobas

Reality: Marcocapelle did indeed opine incorrectly that removal of personal attacks is inappropriate (see: WP:RPA on removal: where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose). What Jobas fails to mention is Marco advised him "you should discuss this with User:Xenophrenic directly, preferably on their user talk page. If that doesn't help, you could ask an administrator to have a further look. Jobas ignored that advice, ignored my attempts to discuss his concerns, and instead persisted in repeatedly re-inserting his unsubstantiated accusations of "racism" and targeted canvassing of people with "my POV".

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic's racism and prejudical comments, there are many. In one example, User:Xenophrenic wrote the following personal attack: Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? --Jobas

Reality: If there were "many", Jobas would waste no time in producing them. There are none. Look at the one snippet Jobas does cite, in context, and it is clear that it certainly isn't racism, and it certainly isn't "mocking his heritage". Jobas has said that English is not his native language, and my comments show that my concern (and growing frustration) was only that there was a serious communication problem. His comments were making less and less sense:

Your Blainey source doesn't mention "Persecution by atheists", which is what we are discussing here. You say that English is not your native language, so perhaps you have misunderstood what you have read? It doesn't support the nonsensical category you created. Xenophrenic 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
English please? We've already addressed the fact that Blainey doesn't convey that there was persecution because of atheism, and your statement "atheism was going beyond communism into persecution by worldviews by other worldviews" has no meaning in the English language. Reword, please? Regards, Xenophrenic 16:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? Dawkins is a reliable source, of course, until I hear otherwise from WP:RSN. Xenophrenic 05:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative fact: I also smell some WP:CANVASSING on the part of ... Xenophrenic for his obviously selective notification of the ATHEISM board. --Ad Orientem

Reality: Yes, I WP:CANVASSED, but appropriately and as recommended: When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small and An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: one or more WikiProjects ... The talk page of one or more directly related articles. The category under discussion is "Persecution by atheists", so I placed a notice at the Atheists (redirects to Atheism) talk page. That is the only "directly related" talk page, and it happens to be frequented more by critics of atheism if the discussions are any indication. (Note: I originally went to WikiProject:Atheism to post a notice, but I was greeted with an inactivity banner, and I saw it had only been edited a handful of times over the past 5 years.) On what possible grounds, Ad Orientem, do you cast aside WP:AGF and conclude there was "selective notification" going on?

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic seems to be on a mission to expunge from the project any suggestion that atheism had a role in the great religious persecutions of the last century or so. --Ad Orientem

Reality: Xenophrenic doesn't deal in "suggestions" in articles, only reliably sourced information and policy-compliant presentation. Of course atheism is a component of the last century of history; in fact, reliable sources convey that it was a sought-after and expected result in many regimes, and I've never argued otherwise. Your assertion that I'm "expunging" anything inappropriately is absurd, and I must press you for explicit substantiation, please.

• Alternative fact: I notified several WP:PROJECTS of the existence of the CFD discussion including SKEPTIC, HISTORY, CHRISTIANITY, CATHOLICISM and ORTHODOXY --Ad Orientem

Reality: I have no problem with you canvassing at more locations, because when WP:CONSENSUS policy is followed, head-counts and votes don't matter, and consensus is determined by quality of the arguments - so more people can only be a good thing. I see you canvassed at Wikiproject:Christianity. So did Eliko007, here. Oh, and yet again at that page. Can't have too many notices at the same project, I always say. Eliko007 also hit Eastern Orthodox. I see you also placed one on their Wikiproject page. At least yours are neutrally worded, while Eliko007's notices come complete with disparagement of a fellow discussion participant at no extra charge. Actual violations of canvassing policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Some Conclusions and Recommendations

OK, I've taken a somewhat closer, but not forensic, look at the immediate issues and also the editing history of both parties. At this point I have reached a few conclusions and am ready to make some preliminary recommendations for the community's consideration.

• Jobas erred and breached WP:AGF in his accusation of racism. The evidence is nowhere near sufficient to sustain that charge. I suggest a short, 12-24 hrs, block.
• I suspect but am uncertain that Jobas may have been engaging in CANVASSING in his ping. I suggest he be admonished to exercise greater care when pinging other editors to any discussion where there is a possibility of it being interpreted as canvassing.
• Jobas' longer term editing history reinforces my suspicions stated earlier that he may be here to right great wrongs, especially on the subject of religious persecution. That suspicion is not as strong as with Xenophrenic but it is there. A topic ban may be in order, but I am not certain enough to formally suggest it at this point. I would be interested in reading the views of other editors before going there.
• After taking a look at Xenophrenic's editing history, of which more shortly, I am satisfied that his selective notification of the ATHEISM talk page was clear canvassing. I suggest a short term (12-24hrs) block and that a note be posted on the CFD discussion advising the reviewing admin that some of the !votes may be a result of canvassing.
• Xenophrenic's editing history, and I'm not going to post diffs, there are just too many, strongly indicates a pattern of tendentious, and at times very aggressive editing on the subject of atheism, and in particular its alleged involvement in acts of religious persecution. When looking at his long term record I think the evidence of POV editing on this topic is very strong. It is also worth noting that he has been repeatedly blocked for aggressive editing in the past. On which basis I suggest that Xenophrenic be indefinitely topic banned from both the subjects of atheism and religious persecution broadly construed.
• As much as I hate adding to ArbCom's work load, I agree with John Carter's suggestion that we kick the issue involving categories assigning responsibility for various large scale religious persecutions to them. This is such a deeply controversial topic that it is bound to get heated and draw POV editing.

Full Disclosure: I had an unpleasant interaction with Xenophrenic on the issue of religious persecution in the past, where I felt his editing on the topic of the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Communist period was overly aggressive and lacking in respect for the opinions of other editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Would you mind specifically indicating that "unpleasant interaction" with me, with perhaps some explanatory information as to why you found it unpleasant? Congrats on your adminship, by the way. May I suggest you refrain from suggesting punitive blocks (12-24 hrs)? Blocks should be used to stop ongoing disruption, or prevent inevitable disruption, but not as punishment after the fact. Note that I didn't ask to have Jobas blocked for his accusation of racism, repulsive as it was, and as explained above (and at WP:CANVASS) I did not conduct selective canvassing. Also, if you are going to make accusations like "When looking at his long term record I think the evidence of POV editing on this topic is very strong", you really should provide that evidence. Otherwise, you don't leave the wrongly-accused much to work with. You've admitted that you are involved, and you've further admitted your negative disposition toward me, so I think your recommendations of administrative actions is very out of place. But, to be frank, I'd prefer it if you remain engaged here if there is any chance of us clearing the air and develop any level of mutual understanding. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, thank you for your response and congratulatory note. We had a disagreement back when you were purging any reference to atheism on Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. I am prepared to reconsider my suggestion for the block of Jobas based on Drmies comment below which raises some doubt. In your case, I'm sorry but it still looks like canvassing to me. Feel free to make your case though. The community will look at the evidence and history and draw their own conclusion. I take the same view of our previous disagreement. I disclosed it in the interest of fairness and the community can decide what weight, if any, they choose to give my opinions in this matter. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Ad Orientem, I've just reviewed our "unpleasant" interaction at the article you mentioned, which consisted of you trying to insert a problematic category twice, and me reverting those insertions. That's it. If that brief interaction was 'unpleasant' for you, I predict you are going to be in for a world of disappointment as an administrator. Here are the 4 edit summaries from our interaction over the span of a week:

→ Per WP:COMMONSENSE. The USSR was a state governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism. -You

→ Not supported in article (and per WP:COMMONSENSE, persecution is not a component of Atheism, duh, it's a component of Marxist-Leninist ideology); already has the accurate Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union -Me

→ Undid revision 729892191 by Xenophrenic (talk)The USSR was an officially Atheist state between 1928-1939 during the height of the persecutions. Please stop your aggressive POV editing. -You

→ rmv n/a cat; WP:BRD - see Talk -Me

At that point I initiated a discussion on the article Talk page here, clearly explaining why the category was removed. You never joined the discussion. What you describe as "purging any reference to atheism on Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union" was in reality my removal of a single non-applicable category, while I left 164 - yes, count them, one hundred and sixty four - references to atheism in the article. I think you just took exaggerated hyperbole to a whole new level. Would I be incorrect to conclude that you consider our interaction "unpleasant" not because of our brief edit summary interaction, but because of our different ideological positions in this matter? And as for the other matter, "it still looks like canvassing to me" - of course I canvassed, as did you, because we are supposed to. And we both did so neutrally. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I stand corrected in my characterization of your editing on that article and have stricken that line from my comment.Beyond that I have already addressed quite candidly our differences and stated that the community is free to draw its own conclusions. My editing record speaks for itself, as does yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Ad Orientem, I appreciate your feedback and you taking the time to review this issue. I should note that English is my third language and so "racism" might have been the wrong word to use, although as administrator User:John Carter pointed out above, it was "perhaps [a] really cheap shot by Xenophrenic, and that such do not help reduce the complaint of racism". If racism wasn't the right word to use, User:Xenophrenic's comments were definitely offensive and still hurtful. It was not only myself, but another Wikipedian, User:LoveMonkey, who made the following comment to User:Xenophrenic after also feeling that User:Xenophrenic's comments were unwarranted and possibly xenophobic:

You appear to be assuming bad faith as you say "English please" and this or that "doesnt even make sense" to you as if you have to be in agreement, policy here says thats not so that behavior is a characteristic of disruptive editing. If you can not hear or understand which is a vio called WP:IDHT you not here to contribute you are here to disrupt. --LoveMonkey

I should note that I did not make the charge against User:Xenophrenic after the first personal attack against me, but User:Xenophrenic can be seen making comments attacking my heritage/language at least three times, e.g. "English, please?", "perhaps you have misunderstood what you have read?", "Oh, and yes I've cited many reliable sources already (keep reading; they are in English)", "Is that Arabic?". Also, I did not hyperlink your username in order to ask for a comment in the discussion, but I simply hyperlinked your name because I mentioned that you had reverted User:Xenophrenic's removal of the category (this was indeed relevant to the discussion). Once again, I apologize if I used the improper word to describe User:Xenophrenic's repeated jabs at me, but in light of English being my third language, I don't think that this should minimize his actions (and I also apologize and ask forgiveness for using the incorrect word to convey my feelings). Very respectfully, Thank you.--Jobas (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if I used the improper word to describe User:Xenophrenic's repeated jabs at me, but in light of English being my third language --Jobas

"Racism" is a very strong charge; thank you for apologizing for the misuse of it. I suspected it might have been a language issue. When I questioned your comprehension of the sources you were citing, I suspected a language problem then as well -- that is why I kept mentioning "English". I'm sorry that you felt "jabbed at", but when you repeatedly claimed that I hadn't cited any sources, after I cited many (including one you introduced), my responses grew a little terse. Please don't take it personally.

Xenophrenic's comments were unwarranted and possibly xenophobic --Jobas

Xenophobic? Seriously? You are doing it again. Are you aware what Xenophobic means in English? Facepalm Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban for Xenophrenic on articles pertaining to atheism and religion. I've had to deal with this character on CfD and he has been nothing less than a migraine. He's repeatedly edited my comments and reverted me when I restored what I had to say, including concerns that he was canvassing other editors to the discussion. His history of tendentious and battleground editing warrant nothing less than this. Eliko007 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to call for a topic ban for "this character", Eliko007, you should at least provide valid reasoning. As has already been detailed above, I haven't edited or reverted your comments at all, except to replace blatant personal attacks ("serious accusations about a fellow editor's behavior without substantiating evidence") with the "RPA" template. As for canvassing editors to the discussion, of course I did, as I was instructed to at WP:CfD to do so: It may also be helpful to post a message on the talkpage of a related article, and I was careful to "comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing." Now contrast that to your totally inappropriate canvassing (e.g.; here, and here and here) where you disparage another editor in your non-neutral canvass message. It is true that I have a history (over a decade) of doing a lot of article improvement editing in controversial "battleground" topics, so I am used to editors trying to eliminate from the discussion those with whom they disagree. Do you have any actual legitimate reasons to suggest a topic ban on a fellow editor, or are you one of those editors trying to silence an editor presenting a reliably sourced opposing viewpoint? I see your account has been around for less than 50 days, with even fewer article edits, so perhaps this should be chalked up to inexperience? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I do not want to disagree with Ad Orientem, but I take a slightly different view: I do not believe any line was crossed by calling out a comment as racist, the comment was a terrible low blow and "xenophobic" (I looked it up, Xenophrenic) is not a bad word to describe it. At the very least "is that Arabic?" is pejorative to an extent that I really don't want this editor around, esp. if they refuse to accept responsibility for their words. And I have more things to say, but none of them are proper for polite company. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, Drmies - I'm afraid I have to call you on your fake misdirected outrage there. Is this payback for me helping to vote you on to the Arbitration committee? In all of our interactions (whether amiable or in disagreement - we've done both), when have you ever known me to exhibit even the slightest racism or xenophobia? As I already explained above, "is that Arabic?" was me conveying to Jobas that his comments were unintelligible. You can rightly accuse me of being a little testy and snarky at most, but when you say "'is that Arabic' is pejorative to an extent that I really don't want this editor around", I have to call bullshit, if you'll pardon my French. (Ack! Racism!) Jobas claims to speak four languages, which IMO is remarkable, and frankly he holds up rather well in English Wikipedia debates and discussions. But his arguments were becoming indecipherable, for example, "atheism was going beyond communism into persecution by worldviews by other worldviews", which is Greek to me. (Crap - there's that nasty racism yet again!) I don't think it is unfair for me to expect a little competence from my fellow Wikipedia editors when they are arguing with me over what a source says. And there is a lot of easily confused nuance in the sources we're discussing. I'm with you that racist commentary should be called out without hesitation - legitimately racist commentary - but your "slightly different view" is uncharacteristically way off the mark here, Drmies. I take full responsibility for my words, of course - no idea why you would suggest otherwise. And as offense was never my intent, I've no problem redacting or striking comments that some perceive as ill-worded. But I'll not accept frivolous mischaracterizations of racism or xenophobia. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Huh? Nothing frivolous about it. It was a comment which sounds racist, xenophobic, etc. "Is that Arabic" is as much like "pardon my French" as "look at my African-American" is like "I have a dream". So drop the patronizing "fake" and "crap racism again". When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Knock it off, Drmies. You can't call a fellow editor's comments xenophobic or racist, then tell them to "stop digging" when they object to your baseless, clueless attack. "French" and "English" and "Greek" and "Arabic" are all LANGUAGES in the context in which I've used them, and your tortured contortions to portray my comments as "xenophobic" are out of line. I'm the editor who gets attacked and dragged to drama boards (and an ArbCom) for calling out racism, remember? There is more I could say, but I see you have now walked back your attack in your comment below, from "Racism/xenophobia" to "linguistic privilege" to mere "making fun". Better, but still inaccurate. My comments were reciprocal sarcasm and snark, born from a frustrating history with this particular editor. "Patronizing" - Pffffft. If you want to imagine racist motivations where none exist, please keep your fantasies to yourself. Respectfully, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ad Orietem has done the most comprehensive work so far, I'd say at least $10 worth, and I only have $.02 to offer. The offending comment has passed, and perhaps this discussion here will show Xenophrenic that their words aren't as innocuous as they seem--or that they cannot get away with low blows such as those. Whether it was racist or xenophobic or otherwise linguistically privileged is besides the point: if a user isn't fluent in English you can tell them that, but what you cannot do is make fun of it. It's really that simple.

  I have not looked into their edits so I cannot comment on whether it's specific topic areas that trigger specific responses: I leave that to Ad Orientem's judgment, in which I have faith (Ad O., I don't see this getting up to ArbCom level: we have not yet adjusted "normal" means--and don't you miss RfC/U?). What I do know is that it's too late for blocking either editor; that would be punitive. What I also know is that we should not be afraid to block for completely uncollegial comments. Those comments have a chilling effect and deter editors from sticking around and improving themselves and our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, when you put it that way. I will try to be more circumspect and polite in conveying to my fellow editors that what they are saying is unintelligible to me; even while they are pelting me with a barrage of false allegations and rudeness of their own. I should be able to demonstrate more patience. I will take your advice on board. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have refrained from putting in my 2 cents worth until this point, because it would probably just give Flyer22 Reborn another person to accuse me of being a master or puppet of(woah we both use the letter a, here and here, we have both encountered the topic of religion here and here, and if the names xenophrenic and petergstrom were variables that represented 57 and 60, then there would be a 3 different , 3 sides to a triangle, illuminati confirmed.) However I will note that I have yet to have a pleasant encounter with User:Jobas. Although this may partially be due to my own aggressive behavior, I think he could have handled it better. Furthermore, although I commend Jobas for learning and editing in so many languages, I question wether, as it causes comprehension issues, language compromises his ability to edit. He has also demonstrated a POV bias, all the while accusing me of a POV bias. He gives undue weight to sources that are only partially relevant when Christianity is seen in a beneficial light, but when I condense he claims censorship, to a hypocritical extent. Xenophrenic, I think is not racist, however the terms he used to describe Jobas's english do demonstrate self control issues(although I'm not one to really speak about that). The "is that arabic" is not discrimination based on race, nor is is xenophobia. Although not very respectful, it was not racism. A claim or racism, is equally as bad. Racism is a very very charged term, and even basic english speakers understand the negative connotations it commands. I think that although xenophrenic may have been disrespectful with language comments(some of which I have made myself in the past), he neither maliciously manipulated the system into pushing the consensus to his side, nor did he disparage an editor because of a preconceived bias. Petergstrom (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to ping me, then ping me correctly instead of using a red link. Otherwise, I will assume that you really were not trying to ping me. As for accusing you of being a sock, the accusation is not baseless or made in any trivial way, so don't pretend that it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am going to disagree with Ad Orientem in one respect. I do not believe that Xenophrenic's post to the Talk:Atheism page was canvassing. It was neutrally phrased, and unless you believe that every editor who watches Talk:Atheism is likely to !vote in a particular way, it was not targeted either. You only have to look at that talk page to see that. Also, the editors who presumably came from Talk:Atheism did not !vote in the same manner, which sort of proves the point. I cannot support a block for that partuclar issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Some responses to comments above: As far as I can tell this seems to be where we are. The nature of Xenophrenic's comment to Jobas seems edgy at best and Drmies seems convinced it goes beyond that. At the very least one would hope that Xenophrenic would be more restrained in their manner of communicating with other editors. But we do not seem to be of one mind yet on whether or not his comment was racist. Also there is no consensus at the moment on the charge of canvassing and in any case the alleged offenses are stale. From my perspective that is now a dead issue. This leaves the question of POV and tendentious editing for which I believe there is evidence for both parties. The question then is, are topic bans in order? At the moment I support a topic ban for Xenophobic from the subjects of Atheism and Religion broadly construed. I think I would also support albeit weakly a topic ban for Jobas for the subject of religious persecution. Conceding some necessary exceptions, I'm not a huge fan of indefinite sanctions so I'd include the possibility of their asking the community that the TBans be lifted after two years conditional on no history of POV or other forms of obviously disruptive editing. Eliko007 seems to support a TBan for Xenophrenic and Petergstrom supports a TBAn for Jobas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

I am striking part of my last comment. I think I misread an earlier post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem It should be noted that User:Petergstrom is currently facing a topic ban on articles related to medicine and religion, broadly construed, due to tendentious editing, houding, and possible sockpuppetry. His edits have included inserting false information that states that both Moses (diff) and Jesus (diff) had paranoid schizophrenia, in addition to numerous other problematic issues.--Jobas (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I misread his earlier comment anyway. This discussion is getting long. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I was on the edge on the Jobas TBan, however continued his poor characterisation of my edits, which I have explained many times is incorrect(with no response) is disconcerting. It shows lack of insight. Support Topic ban for Jobas in religionPetergstrom (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban for Xenophrenic, as his contentious, POV editing will almost certainly continue until it is forcibly stopped. Jobas has not reached the level of a topic ban, but is advised to tone it down. Lepricavark (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• I've been observing this dispute since it caught my attention shortly after being opened, and for me the bottom line is: ^what Drmies said. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I see no need to sanction Jobas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Some unbiased, updated Conclusions and Recommendations

This ANI report was filed as an appeal to administrators to firmly instruct User:Jobas to refrain from calling editors racist, and to refrain from bad-faith accusations of POV canvassing of specific editors. It is common knowledge that anyone posting comments at this drama board is subject to scrutiny as well. With that in mind, here is where we are so far::

Incivility

• User:Jobas has apologized for the accusation of "racism", citing the use of an improper word and the fact that English isn't his native language. Jobas has also, however, nonetheless taken offense at Xenophrenic's "jabs" at his language use. Xenophrenic concedes he responded with unnecessarily provocative and impolite comments, and he sincerely apologizes for them and won't repeat that conduct.

Canvassing

• Four editors have now canvassed for attendance to the CfD. Consensus is that User:Jobas pinged several like-minded editors to the discussion, in violation of WP:CANVASS. User:Eliko007 included disparaging comments about an editor in his canvass messages here, here, and here, in violation of WP:CANVASS. They should both be admonished not to do so again. User:Ad Orientem posted policy-compliant notices at 5 locations, although reposting a redundant second message at the Christianity board seems excessive. Xenophrenic posted a policy-compliant notice at the article Talk page associated with the discussion subject (Atheist). Ad Orientem has alleged that Xenophrenic's canvass message was "selective" when placed at the atheism Talk page, contrary to apparent consensus:

Black Kite: I do not believe that Xenophrenic's post to the Talk:Atheism page was canvassing. It was neutrally phrased, and unless you believe that every editor who watches Talk:Atheism is likely to !vote in a particular way, it was not targeted either. [53]

Rhododendrites ^talk: I would like to address the accusations of canvassing that run through this thread. As far as I can tell, they're based on a message at Talk:Atheism. This is very clear cut not canvassing according to that very page (WP:CANVASS), which explicitly allows for notifications at "The talk page of one or more directly related articles." [54]

THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓: I'm sure we both know full well that Xenophrenic is not canvassing, and it is, in fact, the most transparent way of going about bringing attention to this quite off-the-radar discussion. [55]

jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}: Notice on Talk:Atheism counts as "appropriate notification: The talk page of one or more directly related articles". [56]

Martin of Sheffield: ... indeed Xenophrenic's edit is calm and neutral (requesting "Informed pro & con input based on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources"). [57]

BAN-able editing conduct? (!)

• User:Ad Orientem has suggested that Xenophrenic be indefinitely topic banned from both the subjects of atheism and religious persecution broadly construed because of "very aggressive editing on the subject of atheism, and in particular its alleged involvement in acts of religious persecution." Really? Yet Ad Orientem says he is "not going to post diffs, there are just too many". Calling for a topic ban based on no diffs and no discussion of alleged ban-able behavior? I must call foul-play, Ad Orientem. I realize that you are new to this Admin role, but you have to realize that what you are doing is out of process. You generously gave "Full Disclosure" that you had an "unpleasant" experience with me. That's Full Disclosure? Didn't you leave out the part where you secretly colluded to have Jobas join a lynch mob against me? Didn't you leave out the part where you were advising Jobas on a more efficient way to try to get me sanctioned? Don't you think the people reading this deserve to know that, based on our discussion just above, the reason you consider our interaction "unpleasant" is not because of my editing behavior after all, but because of your ideology? There is a reason why Jobas pinged you to the deletion discussion, Ad Orientem, and I commend you for not running to join him there - but let's be honest, you are as much of a belligerent in this matter as Jobas is. The fact is, I don't "very aggressively edit" atheism or religion articles any more than I edit all controversial articles on politics, genocide, protest movements, etc., and I think you know that. The reason you haven't provided diffs to substantiate your allegation of egregious editing behavior is because they don't exist (or have long ago been addressed in other venues). This is the ANI drama board, where anyone can get a clown-car full of pitchfork wielding rabble to give their "me too!" by just mentioning the word "ban", even without presenting evidence.

Arbitration Committee case?

• I agree with Drmies that ArbCom is a premature step for addressing editor behavior in this matter. But I strongly agree with John Carter that we should have ArbCom review our "Category:Persecution of XXX/ by YYY" categories and determine which, if any, are good for the project to keep and which should be removed from the project. Or is that out of ArbCom's scope? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"Unbiased". 2600:1017:B020:6D0F:FA99:2F6A:2535:4B30 (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It is extremely hard to imagine how anyone other than perhaps Xenophrenic himself would necessarily believe that, given the nature of his involvement in this matter, he would be one anyone could call "unbiased," and the fact that he describes himself as such in the start of this subthread may be worth noting, as it may be seen by some as displaying perhaps less then exceptional self-awareness. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Both editors blocked for edit warring

I have blocked both editors for severe edit warring. While no 3RR violation seems to have occurred on any single page, countless edit wars were happening on a multitude of pages, all over the same category. This includes e.g. two rvs by Jobas and 3 by Xenophrenic at Cristero War. Untl now, this was a slow moving edit war (e.g. at the same article, Xenophrenic removed the same category in June and July 2016, and was twice reverted by Jobas).

I don't care who, if anyone, is more right or wrong here; such edit warring should never happen, and if one user acted disruptively during the dispute, the other one could have mentioned this here instead of reacting in kind.

Xenophrenic is blocked for a week because they have had multiple blocks for edit warring in the past, the last one in July 2016 for 72 hours. Jobas only block was in 2007 (and not for edit warring), so they get only a 24 hour block.

To be somewhat precise, Xenophrenic had 43 reverts in less than 2 hours, Jobas had 13 reverts in less than 20 minutes. Both editors also left edit warring warnings on each other's talk pages... Fram (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Close?

Since both parties are currently blocked, and in Xenophrenic's case won't be able to reply for a week, I think it would be somewhat unfair to keep this discussion open. I suggest an uninvolved Admin take a look and after taking any further action (if they believe any warranted), close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

David Eppstein

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

---

David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has:

• accused me of lying in an edit comment.
• shouted at me in an edit comment.
• insinuated that I am intentionally obtuse, i.e. not editing in good faith, in an edit comment.
• accused me of being condescending in an edit comment.
• Breached WP:BRD.[58][59][60]

I asked him on his talk page to stop this abuse but got a snippy rejection. He has also failed to stop making uncited edits while the content concerned is under discussion at Talk:Dual polyhedron and Talk:Polyhedron. Other editors are now joining in the discussion, but he is still sniping at me. I feel unable to continue a sensible discussion while all this is going on, it is clearly meant to intimidate me. I would ask at least for a topic ban (other editors are taking up his case so there is no danger of losing NPOV), and whatever sanctions against the abuse in the edit comments might be deemed appropriate.

Of course, if any of his complaints against me are justifiable than I will be happy to apologise as necessary, but at the moment my words are not being taken in good faith - for example a cup of tea was spurned in one of those links above - so I see little point. Certainly, no offence was intended on my part. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Basically, this is a content dispute; see Talk:Polyhedron and Talk:Dual polyhedron for the boring details. "Accused of lying" means, in this context, that I believe Steelpillow's preferred version of article content misleads the readers. "Intentionally obtuse" means Steelpillow's continued insistence on placing a [clarify] tag on a sentence I added, whose context (the difficulty of defining non-convex geometric duality) had already been gone over at great length in the discussion. Condescending means that Steelpillow told me to go read elementary texts on the subject of my professional expertise, and, after already having been informed that it is a subject I am familiar with, told me he was disappointed he had to remind me of things that, in actuality, I needed no reminding of — I still think "condescending" is an appropriate description of this. And under what interpretation of our guidelines is making an edit and then reinstating it a single time a breach of anything? Geometry is not a subject under 0RR restrictions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There are clear personal attacks in the edit summaries by David Eppstien. Just because you disagree with an editor is no excuse for you to call him a lier - which you did in the first diff.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say "Steelpillow is a liar", an ad hominem remark about an editor (and one that I don't believe to be true — I have no reason to doubt Steelpillow's general honesty). I said "Steelpillow insists on lying to the readers", a remark aimed at the content Steelpillow preferred rather than at the person. The article content in question is technically true, but only for an appropriate and non-intuitive choice of technical definition that Steelpillow insists on omitting — this is the basis of the dispute. My position is that, without adding the qualification that I want to add, the content is very likely to cause readers to think false things. But perhaps this edit summary was infelicitously phrased. Do you have a more civil and concise way of writing "causing readers to think false things" in an edit summary? Because I stand by that statement — I believe that it is an accurate description of the content in question. It may help (or not?) to note that there is a long history in mathematics of calling misleading oversimplifications made for pedagogical purposes "lies" — that exact word — see e.g. [61]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What you need to do is talk about the content only and not about the editors. While there may be a long history of using the word "lying" and making personal attacks in mathematics and perhaps in Academia, there is no place for that sort of behaviour in a collaborative project like Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• And he's still at it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Still at what? Repeating the same claims that your preferred version of the content is misleading to readers, this time without even using the word "lie"? Yes, because I still believe it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no content claim in the edit being referred to: this can be seen in the linked diff of the "reply". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"the article stays in its misleading-to-readers state" is not a content claim? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• My diagnosis: David Eppstein's description of Steelpillow's comments as melodramatic and condescending seems accurate; I also note that Steelpillow's comment about tea, which may have been intended to be read in a friendly way, comes across as dismissive, and would have irritated me if I were the recipient. David Eppstein's responses got tetchy, and the use of the word "liar" "lying" and the all-caps were not necessary or helpful. A good outcome would be for David Eppstein to apologize for the shouting and for Steelpillow to apologize for the condescension and agree to engage better in the content discussion. --JBL (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I clearly did get tetchy and shouty, and I apologize for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with JBL's assessment (though the actual word used was "lying" not "liar"), and I'm glad to see that David Eppstein has apologized. I hope that Steelpillow will do likewise. Paul August ☎ 22:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As I have said, I am happy to apologise for any perceived condescension. This was not intended. David is a highly reputable mathematician and my purpose in drawing his attention to basic texts on the subject was because that is where Wikipedia turns first for its references - as an WP:EXPERT working in the stratosphere it is sometimes hard to remember that - and it was highly relevant to the content dispute. With hindsight I could evidently have phrased myself more carefully, and I apologise for giving the wrong impression. Further, I did not appreciate the depths of David's resentment and the tea episode was a light-hearted attempt between two experienced editors and geometers (I am not in David's league but I have a few papers to my credit) to calm things down. That the light-heartedness was again open to misinterpretation is also something I should apologise for.

If I have been "melodramatic" then I'd like to be shown where and how I have been more so than David has, so that I can avoid doing so in future. Also, once I know what I am being asked to apologise for, then I will be happy to do so there as well.

However I must temper this with the observation that throughout David has pursued a tactic of aggressive violations of advice and guidelines; ignoring BRD, failure to cite sources for contentious edits, reluctance discuss an issue before returning to aggressive editing, etc. etc. - the diffs I gave are the tip of the iceberg there - and that was what put me in the position in the first place, of trying to bring him round. It was I who opened the talk page discussion, not him, and I did that because he was already being aggressive, e.g. here and here.

I have always assumed good faith on David's part, while he has transparently failed to do so in return - check out all those POV-pushing allegations in the diffs.

Personal attacks in edit summaries are worse than those on talk pages because WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL gets difficult, so I should like some admin comment on the present violation of WP:ESDONTS, which is a policy and not a mere guideline. Look at the statements above "I didn't call him a liar ... I accused him of lying", with a link to a blog post in support. Now, I think you can all see that if I had responded to his edit comment with something like, "Everybody lies in maths articles" and linked to that same blog in support, David would have gone even more ballistic and you would all have accused me of dirt cheek. And we all know that such language games cut no ice on Wikipedia anyway, the meaning is abundantly clear. So I really do not see a level playing field here. I have done my best to keep the discussion civilised and David has rejected all attempts at that - or, to put it another way, his own attempts have been confined to arrogant slapdowns mixed with the odd policy violation. So yes, I am happy to apologise for any false impressions given, but I feel that at the very least, David owes a lot more than he has yet given, along with an assurance that he will behave himself from now on. Also, an Admin judgement on his policy violation - followed by his bizarre attempts to justify or talk round it here - needs proper consideration. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You have twice said that you were willing to apologize, but you have yet to do so. By contrast, David Eppstein has already apologized in a clear and straightforward way. And, as in the content dispute, essentially nothing you've written is responsive to anyone else. This suggests to me pretty strongly where the problem lies. --JBL (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Most people I know regard "I am happy to apologise" as an apology, and I have given that twice now. I hereby apologise to David for a third time for any perceived condescension in my posts, which I can assure him was not intended. I beg to differ over my contribution to the content dispute, but I don't know why you brought that to ANI, it doesn't belong here - can we deal with it in the article talk pages where it belongs and not throw mud here for the sake of it? It was not me who violated policy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Most people perceive "I would be happy to apologize" and the insertion of words like "... perceived ..." as blame-shifting and as avoidance of taking responsibility for one's behavior. Frankly, your behavior here and on the articles reflects extremely poorly on you. --JBL (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing. As for your request for a response from an admin concerning WP:ESDONTS, let me make it clear that in my opinion, as an admin, David Eppstein's choice of words was inappropriate, especially since, as you correctly point out, they occur in an edit summary. But he has apologized, and so have you. I think that ought to be the end of it. Paul August ☎ 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I was about to say, "OK if that's where folks want to leave it, I am willing to give it a try". But now Joel_B._Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not only making snarky comments here (as JBL) but elsewhere is accusing me of childishness and posting cryptic comment on David's talk page. With both him and David at it I feel badly intimidated and am unwilling to get back into the content discussion. David has apologised only for his edit comments, not for the rest of it, and we have seen from his "liar" vs "lying" wriggling that he plays with words and meanings. Is there anything that can be done to extract undertakings from these two to treat me with respect and assume my good faith from here on in? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talking about childishness in edit summaries (as in that diff) could easily be seen by some as condescending, so that might be something to apologise for, too. Hopefully then this thread can finally be closed.

Regarding assuming good faith, I think it's best to assume good faith on the matter of assuming good faith, rather than requiring proof that someone is going to assume good faith. Κσυπ Cyp   08:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. There is a difference between an untried editor and one who has visibly demonstrated a lack of good faith, but I take your point. I am content that the behavioural issues have now been acknowledged at Admin level and the editors concerned know the score. I'm OK for this to be closed now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Oops, no, he's started up again. His claims about me here are quite false and couched in deliberately disparaging tones. So much for that apology. Can somebody please stop this guy from disrupting our discussions? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I invite ANI readers to follow Steelpillow's new link and judge for themselves whether my contribution there is in any way not content-based, uncivil, or disruptive. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing uncivil or disruptive in what David Eppstein has posted there. Paul August ☎ 02:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess his bizarre and negative misreading of my views must be the root of his problems rather than a symptom of them. It's just proving hard to get past. But that is a content issue. OK, let's can this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in the long comment you linked to about your views. The only sentence that even mentions you (the part about "insistance on the sentence "all polyhedra have duals") is purely about your actions, not your views. You have repeatedly reverted any changes to this sentence, at the two articles in question [62] [63]. Ipso facto, you have insisted on keeping this sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a content issue. I rest my case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:OfficialPankajPatidar - Time for a siteban?

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

---

• OfficialPankajPatidar (talk · contribs)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of OfficialPankajPatidar
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of OfficialPankajPatidar

Normally, for something this blatant and obvious, I wouldn't ask for a formal site ban (a de facto ban works), but this has been going on unabated for about 6 months now, shows little sign of slowing down, and is motivated almost entirely by greed (hence a siteban in an effort to kill off their business).

A little background: OfficialPankajPatidar (hereafter "OPP") was originally CU-blocked in August 2016, with the CU's comment on the case being "This case has mushroomed[...]into what appears to be a paid editing case." Since then, they've been relentless, apparently advertising SEO services to companies and people off-site and then writing articles using throwaway socks. The farm has also been known to !votestack at AfDs in an effort to prevent their paid articles from being deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mindstir_Media) and has a particular list of articles they have a laser focus on, as noted in the archive. As far as what they write, they're about as subtle as an elephant swinging a warhammer into your face. Every article they've made has been deleted, many of them as rapidly as they were created.

I have a dental appointment to get to, and I know less than the CUs even without their tools know, but suffice to say I'm after a siteban to (a) discourage any potential clients from using them, (b) justify blocking and nuking on sight in the event that they start to learn subtlety, and (c) to make any reinstatement of any of the accounts impossible to do unilaterally. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support You down with (banning) OPP? Yeah you know me. Extremely bad pun aside, the user is in essence de-facto banned, as their edits are removed when detected (I know I've deleted a few pages today by their socks). Would be best to make this official I would say. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - There are very few cases in which a community siteban would be more appropriate. Swarm ♠ 17:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I usually think formal bans in cases where there's already a de facto ban are a waste of time, but I agree with the reasons for this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Fine. Paul August ☎ 18:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - of course. GiantSnowman 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Ban discussions for multi-accounts-blocked sockpuppeteers are generally pointless, since nobody's going to unblock them, but when it's someone who's using the project for inappropriate real-life business purposes, we need to demonstrate to outsiders that the activity in question has officially been rejected. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Aw, man... beat me to the punch on this one. GAB^gab 23:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Continued POV Pushing and Aggressive Edit Warring by Xenophrenic

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

---

Just shortly after the CfD started by Xenophrenic closed as "no consensus", User:Xenophrenic decides to empty the entire category again to push his desire to have the category deleted. He started edit warring on over 20 articles to force his will. As can be seen above, several editors including User:Ad Orientem, User:Jobas, User:John Carter, User:Drmies, and User:Lepricavark, favoured a topic ban on religion/atheism topics for this WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND editor Xenophrenic. Xenophrenic has a long history of being blocked for sockpuppetry and edit warring, specifically on articles relating to state atheism and religion. You would have thought he would have learned from almost being topic banned but he continued to edit war unchecked while this discussion was going on. This character has received leniency again and again--now it's time to put an end to the madness. Eliko007 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for Xenophrenic on articles related to Religion/Atheism

• Support As detailed above, Xenophrenic is incapable of learning that his behaviour is wrong. When he skates away with repeated violations, he continues to aggressively push his POV on atheism and religion related articles, putting a heavy burden and workload on honest editors. His MO includes refactoring the comments of others and placing giant walls of text to obfuscate his actions of edit warring, sockpuppetery, POV pushing, and more recently, personal attacks. Eliko007 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note Per the above closed section: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#You are displaying racism!, the user's been blocked for a week for continued edit warring. This is not a support or an oppose, but to bring attention to a previous matter. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Eliko007, since this is the case, would you be willing to look at Xenophrenic's talk page periodically, and if he posts anything that would go in this section, would you please copy it here? Users ought to have the chance to offer input when it's been proposed that they be banned from something. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I will do it. I am not involved in this topic and, not having examined the behavior of anyone involved, have no opinion on whether there should be a topic ban in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see where "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" was followed in this case. Did I miss something?--Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's because it hasn't been. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The rationale for this topic ban seems badly flawed and hyperbolic. "Xenophrenic has a long history of being blocked for sockpuppetry and edit warring, specifically on articles relating to state atheism and religion.". Actually, he doesn't. In fact, first of all it appears that Xenophrenic has no history of being blocked for sockpuppetry - if you read the block log from 2007, the admin that blocked him for sockpuppetry undid the block four days later, admitting a mistake. And whilst it might appear at first that there are a lot of edit-warring blocks, in fact up until the current block there are only four valid blocks in more than ten years: 1/9/07, 9/1/11 (lifted early), 4/2/13 and 23/7/16. (8/2/07 and 1/9/07 were both errors; the first one was linked with the mistaken sockpuppetry issues and expired before it was resolved, and 1/9/07 was a block extension that didn't apply, and was reversed), and only two of those blocks (the last two) were related to edit-warring on atheism/religious issues. Eliko007, you might want to think about re-wording the above statement. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• And since this is ANI, let's have a look at Eliko007's conduct. Xenophrenic has been here ten years; Eliko007 two months and less than 500 edits. Their very first edits were to start an edit-war on Tomas Gorny and make a few other edits. They then disappeared for a month, returning to edit-war again on the Gorny article, reverting three other editors and only avoiding a block by self-reverting the last of their five reverts. An editor on the Gorny talk page has suggested Eliko007 has COI issues with this article and may not be a new editor. Meanwhile, the vast majority of their other edits have been regarding the disputed CfD, where they accused Xenophrenic of canvassing when they had posted a neutral message to a relevant talkpage, before immediately doing exactly the same thing themselves, except less neutrally, doing it again and then doing it again completely non-neutrally (note the addition of "especially Eastern Orthodox Christians"). Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• To sum up, I Oppose per the above, namely the disingenuousness of the request, and the concerns over Eliko007's own editing. I would consider it again if it were brought here by an editor with clean hands in the matter, and a better rationale. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I supported (and still do in principal) a topic ban. However there was not a clear consensus in the preceding discussion. Xenophrenic has since been blocked for a week and is thus not able to easily respond to this discussion. Beyond which we have two experienced admins who have effectively said that no further action is required at this time, to which we can add the oppose of Black Kite. And finally it strikes me as unseemly to call for a topic ban so soon after the previous discussion was closed and Xenophrenic blocked. I have never been a fan of "the voting shall continue until the desired result is obtained." I suggest this discussion be closed without prejudice to revisiting the topic if Xenophrenic's future conduct should give cause to do so. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – and object to this poll even starting before the affected user has even been informed of the ANI complaint! Please slap Eliko007 with a trout for that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Help Wanted- Close of contentious RfC

The following discussion is closed. 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 third uninvolved admin or experienced editor is needed to help close the Secondary School RfC. Please go to this discussion at WP:AN to volunteer. Anyone should feel free to close this thread as soon as we have the close team filled. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Is this the wrong forum?

I am not sure but my computer may have been hijacked (I might have sorted it out but am not sure), so can admins keep an eye on my account just in case. You will able to tell if it's not me, they can spell.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, what the hell? this was started with "new section" and yet appears to be being places in another threads area, why?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The previous section was missing a {{abot}}, so it got confused. Κσυπ Cyp   13:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL, well at least it was nothing to do with my paranoia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: - might be a good idea to change your password for your Wikipedia account, just to be on the safe side. Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My concern is not that my account has been hacked, but that some kind of key logger is in place. Changing the password would not help.Slatersteven (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

POV Investigation for Page, Massive Edits by Inlinetext, Possible COI

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

---

I'm requesting an investigation into significant, possible WP:COI edits made by user Inlinetext on the WP:BLP page Swami Nithyananda. This user has deleted significant portions of the article over the past month including properly sourced awards and publications sections, while leaving only a controversial Finance and Management section that sources Indian tabloid articles like this one. When discussing this with him on his personal talk page, he was initially accusatory, told me to "continue your edits to improve toxicology articles..." and then deleted my reply without proper response. He has now added "e-commerce site" to the primary description of the WP:BLP Swami Nithyananda article without a source. The summation of these factors, 1) significant content deletion 2) Talk issue 3) addition of his latest "e-commerce" edit, has lead me to believe that this user has possible WP:COI, and that the Swami Nithyananda article is now a WP:POV issue. DocTox (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please evaluate (see WP:DUCK) the edits and user pages of User:Rurban23, User:Insight2010 and this user who are all interested in the BLP (and also toxicology). The "e-commerce site" description was already sourced in the body of the article to source and the reference doesn't need to be cited again in the lead section. There is already significant talk page consensue on the article's talk page about the content of the article concerning the removals which were mainly self sourced promotional puff like this. Inlinetext (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What a way to make sure your edits prevail - by raising legitimacy questions on everyone speaking against you? It's a mighty convenient coincidence you found, but you can't side-step your own WP:COI by finger pointing. There is not even a working store on Swami Nithyananda's [primary website], and by "mostly self-sourced", you must mean that you deleted quality content as well? Your malicious intent is clear, and your logic is flawed and see-through. DocTox (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see you have also not notified the above users on their talk page so that they are aware of the situation. Wikipedia has clear rules for tagging users on this page, as they do with citing sources. DocTox (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of other questionable conduct by this user. One of the first things he did was delete more than half of the well-written, properly sourced and non-controversial article Geodesics on an ellipsoid. He kept accusing the primary author of copyright violations, and eventually put a copyright violations tag on the article (making it unreadable). Just today he deleted more than half of another well-sourced, non-controversial article: Stanton Foundation. I opened a sock-puppet investigation of this user on January 28 because his choice of articles and editing style (for example, falsely claiming both original research and copyright violation) is very similar to banned users Crapscourge and Turnitinpro. Jrheller1 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And just to clarify, Jrheller1 is talking about User:Inlinetext. (To avoid confusion since Inlinetext accused ME of the WP:DUCK). My next concern is the complete destruction Inlinetext has done to the WP:BLP Swami Nithyananda article. Look at the 1 month history and you'll see he's done the same. Near complete deletion... and now addition of highly controversial opinions.

The 3 articles in question, Swami Nithyananda, Geodesics on an ellipsoid, and Stanton Foundation all share the common characteristic of being developed by massively conflicted editors used for self promotion. All these articles are badly sourced or poorly sourced to allow such POV pushing to be effected. My edits (invariably with clear edit summaries referencing the applicable policies) have focused attention on the problem areas and I am anxious to discuss these changes on the article talk pages with any interested editor willing to edit cooperatively to improve these articles and render them policy compliant. Swami Nithyananda which saw massive POV editing/sockpuppetry is now stable. Geodesics on an ellipsoid is also stable and there have been significant cooperative improvements on the article after extensive talk page discussion. Similarly Stanton Foundation was very recently edited by me to object to the massive addition of POV text on 15th March 2016 by a self declared WP:SPA, WP:COI, paid editor to this article, who seems to have left the project after media/news reports about the Stanton Foundation manipulating Wikipedia again. The SPA neither discussed these massive additions on the talkpage nor requested these to be inserted by a neutral editor (per brightline). As User 'Jrheller1' is not prepared to discuss (with me) the content and behaviorial concerns with the blatant COI editing on Stanton Foundation, I repeat them below for wider discussion.

• It is not enough to disclose one's affiliations.

• COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing

• In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead.

• When large amounts of text are added by or on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better.

Needless to say the WMF Terms of Use require that community COI policies are to be invariably complied with in addition to ToU terms and conditions deprecating paid editing. Inlinetext (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@DocTox: As far as I can see you have made zero effort to engage in discussion on the article talk pages. This is a simple content dispute and it should go to the relevant talkpages. Inlinetext has followed the generally accepted edit procedures. As a side note, I really don't understand why people come here and do this type of stuff time and time again. Promotional editing is so easy to spot.--Adam in MO Talk 22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you notice the very first interaction Inlinetext had with another user (Friyman)? Inlinetext accused Friyman of wanting to become an admin for profit. I linked a diff at the sockpuppet investigation page (I'll add it here too [64]). I think DocTox was wise to not try to discuss the article with Inlinetext after their initial conversation (in which Inlinetext told DocTox to not edit the Swami Nithyananda article). Is the "generally accepted edit procedure" going around and deleting more than half of well-written, well-sourced, non-controversial articles? I don't think that is what "bold" really means. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have already rebutted your deliberate misinterpretaion of my remark over (here) because that user carried out 12 edits in 1 minute and when I queried him about it he rep(lied) that I had blanked the page. These are not well sourced articles but poorly sourced. In the case of Stanton Foundation where 'Jrheller1' repeatedly reverted me, the non-WP:RS citation technique used by the SPA was for "X" (a prominent donor agency) to pay money to "Y", then "Y" would self publish "X has indeed paid Y", and then "X" would cite "Y" on Wikipedia as proof that "X has paid Y". In any event, 'Jrheller1' could clarifiy how many other accounts he has/had before his first edit. Inlinetext (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo:I tried discussing it with Inlinetext on his talk page. He effectively told me to do something else with my time and then deleted the conversation without further reply. In any case, since he will not discuss, I will simply revert the edits he's made right now, since this seems to be the solution you suggest. DocTox (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@DocTox: You should discuss it on the article page. You won't be around here long if you continue to blatantly lie about other people's position like you did to me. I'm sure your edit warring block will come soon enough. Quack, quack, my friend.--Adam in MO Talk 04:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: You can clearly see on Inlinetext talk page that I messaged him about it. You can also see that I also posted on the articles talk page as well. Where is the blatant lie? DocTox (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@DocTox: "...I will simply revert the edits he's made right now, since this seems to be the solution you suggest." I made no such suggestion, implicitly or otherwise. Your statement is simply a fabrication and a declaration to edit war. You simply lied. --Adam in MO Talk 05:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Conduct of Inlinetext is questionable, he just reverted a redirect to a WP:NOTNEWS article[65] and never appearing on the talk.[66] Despite the article has been redirected by multiple editors. I am sure he need to tone down a bit. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Reply : The "multiple editor" not unsurprisingly being the subject of multiple sock-puppet investigations naming you ? Inlinetext (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment : Also, the redirect was incorrect RfD link and wrongly applied. Inlinetext (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You must be WP:Gaming the system enough that you linked to a senseless SPI, makes me further enforce that you are simply disruptive with your regular edit warring and COI editing. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Objectionable edit summary

The following discussion is closed. 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 have a quick look at the edit summary here[67]. I don't think it is intended to be racist, but I'm not sure it's the type of language we want in edit summaries. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

At first, it just seemed like garden-variety trash talk. However, this has apparently been a long-term problem with this IP user. That block log is really quite impressive. Following a homophobic outburst in February 2016, the IP user was blocked for a year. It seems like the disruptive behavior has started up once again days after that block ended. I blocked for two years. I have no doubt we'll be dealing with this again on February 14, 2019. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Crikey - I did not even look into their history. Thanks for looking into it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Good block - Hell must have frozen over, I agree with DrChrissy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice weather.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Indeed, it is brass monkey weather where I live (North Somerset) - intended in a light-hearted way. DrChrissy (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC) As was mine. It's not so much cold here (NYC) as very windy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC) DrChrissy, you should come here; on Sunday we hit a record high temperature, 80°F (27°C), which was eight degrees higher than the old record and thirty-two degrees higher than normal. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC) As I sit here under a blanket with a hot water bottle, 27°C sounds just about perfect. The last time I came to your country for a conference, I went to Death Valley which was 42°C at the time and of course, the rental car's air-conditioning packed up. Fortunately, it was a convertible (Mustang), so roof down and off we went. Great tourist drive, but the sun/wind burn on my nose was quite painful! DrChrissy (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In all this friendly chatter, did anyone look at the edit summary? I don't think it warrants revdeletion. I did revert those Shark fin soup edits. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I could see squeezing it into the realm of "purely disruptive material" but policy discourages using revdel for ordinary vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I figured it wasn't disruptive enough to fit the criteria, but I'm still pretty new at this admin stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Edit summary suppressed. Offensive and unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Rogers Toronto Date/EngVar Vandal

I have been spotting and reverting this vandal for years, but recently vandalism has intensified so much that I finally have to report here.

All the IPs this vandal has used can be seen here: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.254.158.227.

This vandal is from the Greater Toronto Area, apparently a Chinese speaker, but goes around Wikipedia changing "centre" to "center", "colour" to "color" and DMY dates to MDY dates wherever the US spelling/style would be inappropriate. Finding many articles protected, this vandal has moved onto articles like Pinctada maxima to change between "mollusk" and "mollusc".

This user has never registered for an account (to my knowledge), but recently has become daily in finding either new IP or new articles to vandalize, so much so that my contributions are now more than 50% reverting this vandal.

A long-term range block of Rogers Hi-Speed Internet IPs in the Toronto area (now apparently in the 2607:FEA8 range) seems appropriate to encourage this vandal to find a new hobby. HkCaGu (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe an edit filter would be a better defence against this? ϢereSpielChequers 07:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the disruption is still ongoing while we discuss this, I've performed a 1 week range block on the latest range, 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64. Is there an edit filter that could easily catch this? You'd have to check for every variation in spelling, wouldn't you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Eddaido and WP:OWNership

This has to be one of the stranger cases of WP:OWN I've come across. I made a change to the date formatting (among some other edits) on George Wylde. Wylde died on 15 January 1650. As was the convention in England at the time, the death was recorded in at least one of the older sources used in the article as occurring on 15 January 1649/1650 (see Lady Day and Old Style and New Style dates#Start of the year in the historical records of Britain and its colonies and possessions for why). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers instructs that "In writing about historical events, however, years should be assumed to have begun on 1 January." Of the sources used in this article Williams simply uses "15 Jan. 1650" and Wylde's History of Parliament entry likewise has " d. 15 Jan. 1650." It's long-standing wikipedia practice as stated to use January as the start of the year, hence Samuel Pepys was born on 23 February 1633, not 23 February 1632/1633, Charles I of England was beheaded on 30 January 1649, not on 30 January 1648/1649 and the First Battle of Middlewich took place on 13 March 1643 and not 13 March 1642/1643. So far so simple. Eddaido (talk · contribs) promptly reverted with Why change the date?. Assuming that the user was not aware of the OS/NS date conventions and the manual of style's guidance on same, I pointed it out on the talk page and made another edit, this time inserting a note that explained the differences, similar to that which can be seen on featured articles like Charles I of England. Eddaido reverted it saying Please just leave it alone. This is the convention. His interaction on the talkpage has gone down to saying please just leave the article alone. and to my request that he engage or I will file a report, he simply says Fightin' words?. At the very least he has frozen out a number of clearly useful edits such as adding categories and some spelling corrections with his blanket reversion. 77.96.115.80 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a WP:content dispute. As both parties are engaged in the discussion even if not perfectly, the solution when there are only 2 if you and you can't come to an agreement is some form of WP:dispute resolution which does not include ANI. If there is existing site wide consensus on this it should be trivial to establish that visa discussion and the other party will have no choice but to accept. Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Removal of other undisputed corrections is problematic but realistically no one is going to sanction over one instance. If they continue to block the improvements when introduced without the disputed content and without any discussion despite attempts then there may be a case. Nil Einne (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion at MoS is not disputed but it should be remembered: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This subject is not Mr Pepys. Anyone interested in more research is thrown by the use of a death year which is not the year recorded. See Will etc.

The editor was asked to either leave the date as it was or add New Style. The whole of the original edit was reverted just to get the attention of an IP editor otherwise unlikely to react (the nature of IPs) and currently amending many similar articles. Sorry to the IP if I bumped a genuine improvement. Nice if its all over. Happiness, Eddaido (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to revert proper edits to get "attention". It also makes little sense, since there's no reason why you can't simply revert but leave the good edits in or revert the reintroduce the changes after reverting. In addition, the IP has clearly been around a long time as you yourself seemed to acknowledge but their talk page is still a red link so you have zero reason to think it was needed, please remember to WP:AGF and treat IPs as WP:HUMAN.

Finally your defence is even more flawed because the first time around you reintroduced most of the changes [68]. It was only the second time around, after the IP had already started discussion on the talk page that you simply reverted without reintroducing the good [69], so you could have gotten attention simply by replying on the talk page (i.e. even ignoring the fact you made no attempt to discuss the first time around so couldn't resonably assume the IP wouldn't have responded if you initiated the discussion). I'm not sure if you disagree with the category, you didn't reintroduce it the first time and although our article does claim with a reference he's buried there, George Wilde isn't listed in Burials and memorials in Westminster Abbey so there may be valid disagreement. But there's no way preserving "WIlliams" is a good edit. Perhaps per WP:BRD the IP shouldn't have reintroduced the year change when it was clearly disputed (although it's complicated by the fact the reason for the dispute wasn't clear and they provided good reason for it the second time around). But that's not a good enough reason to leave out clearly good edits. It's clearly not a case where the edits are so complicated that it's difficult to sort the good from the bad so yo have to wholesale revert. So no, there's no justification for your editing regardless of the rights and wrongs of the content dispute.

Please remember it's not just the IP that are affected but the whole community when you preserve flaws in our articles which someone has attempted to correct, simply to get attention. As I said, you're unlikely to be sanctioned for a single instance (well multiple instances as part of one) but if you do repeat this crap in the future, don't be surprised if you're blocked. So no, no happiness and the only reason the flaw in our article is "all over" is because I reintroduced the IP's correction (after your comment above).

Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a big misunderstanding here. Shall I go into it? Eddaido (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's up to you. The more important thing is that you don't preserve errors because you wish to wholesale revert to get attention in the future (as you implied with your first comment). Note if preserving the error was a mistake (e.g. you missed it when reverting and would have fixed it if you'd noticed or you did notice and intended to fix it but forgot), that's slightly more acceptable but it's still an important reminder to take great care when reverting. And ultimately whatever the reason preserving errors is not acceptable. So while there may be some more tolerance for the occasional honest mistake, it's still something you need to prevent. One option would be simply to avoid wholesale reverting when only simple parts of the edit are disputed. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not notifying users about their pages being deleted

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

---

Today I received a request on my talk page to undelete a page which I had moved back to Draft. They couldn't find it at all, and when I checked their contribs I saw it had been deleted. SwisterTwister was the user who added the CSD tags, but never notified them, so I can understand their confusion.

This is not the first time this has happened. A lack of notifying the creator for a set of AFDs resulted in this rather exhausting ANI thread. In it were several admonishments for lack of notification when a page was AFD'd. I've left him a couple of notes to this effect, to no avail.

My main concern is the prolific rate of editing in which ST performs. Just in the last month, he has started 36 AFDs, 81 MFDs, 3 SPI cases ([70]), and at least 500 CSDs without a single user talk notification.

I'm not concerned with whether he has been right or wrong in his nominations, but the fact that there are at least 600 users (in the last month alone!) who might have no idea why their page simply disappeared. As a helper in the IRC channel, I see countless people coming in asking how they can locate their draft; if they don't remember the exact title and/or it's been deleted, we can't always help them. His actions are incredibly BITEy, they cause users (usually copyvio offenders) to repeat their mistakes in the future, and it discourage editors from continuing to help out at Wikipedia. I know the XFD/CSD guidelines use "may" and "should" (though the {{db-g12}} template says "ensure they were notified"), but for someone who has such a tremendous impact on new users I think an exception should be made.

The easiest thing to do would be to ask ST to use Twinkle when they nominate pages; it means zero extra effort on his part, since the script will automatically notify the user in question. It also means the incredibly vague nomination statements ("N", "None of this suggests a notable article", "(C)" or just nothing at all), will be replaced with something useful. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Both WP:AFD and WP:CSD explicitly say it should be done / is considered standard practice, so imho those not doing it should have good reasons why not. Asking this user (and others) to use a script that both automates tagging and notifying users seems like a sensible idea. In the long run, we probably should consider making notifying users a rule. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

To add something else here, I've long been concerned that ST seems to ignore the vast majority of news users who post on his talk page, asking genuine questions about how to improve their declined articles. I would rather he reviewed half the articles he does if it means he gets time to respond to those users who ask him questions. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I was likewise concerned that SwisterTwister appeared to simply ignore the users asking questions on his user page, however after some investigation (and "watching" his talk page to ensure that this was a consistent pattern), he actually almost always replies with a comment on their AfC draft instead, presumably because they want to keep discussion all in one place. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to make notification mandatory, then the CSD language needs to be changed. "There is strong consensus", "you can", "suggested template" are not the wording you need for that. Look at the editnotice on this page "You must notify the user on their talk page" -- that's the kind of language that's needed. Change the language to make it mandatory, but don't blame editors if they chose not to do something that isn't required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I proposed such a change for WP:CSD at its talk page. Funny how for more than a decade this was not really a problem since almost all NP patrollers used tools that automated such notifications. I think it's the first time I heard about a user not doing so on such a large scale. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Twinkle also gives the option of not notifying users, Other than "Either notify users or face a block" I can't think of any better options - Clearly new users are confused and clearly this user has no intention of notifying other users so as I said I see no better alternative. –Davey2010^Talk 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Notifying users has always been a "suggestion", not a policy, and WP:Perennial proposals explicitly states this. There has never been a solidified consensus to make it a policy because it's a question of who can be notified, at times, it could be a now-banned user or a CU-confirmed sock, therefore there's no need. For example, such bot-spam accounts I find daily, I never notify because it's all clear unnecessary server-logging, a bot-spam account is not going to know the difference of what we as an encyclopedia accept. There's no serious need for admin intervention here because there have been no policy violations. As it is, any attention to my deleted contribs will find over 80% of it is where the user had no intentions at all because it was simply so blatant. As for the SPIs, I notified at least one of them, but the others were not, simply because they were so obvious, such as Scorpion293's of which was confirmed as a paid puppeteer. Anyone who asked why it was deleted had not noticed the deletion log located in their same article, which either states "Unambiguous advertising" or "Copyviolation", consisting of a link then to our policies. Making anything of it is clear WP:BUREACRACY. As for the MfD nominations, they repeatedly submitted so often, they never showed they understood our policies. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• But why not do it anyway? It is courteous and, with Twinkle, takes no time at all. The impression otherwise is that you are flying under the radar. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• (I do agree re: SPI, though. I rarely notify for those, mainly because of the BEANS thing.) - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I would notify if there was a reasonable chance the user showed they understood our policies, but for example, about the AfC Drafts, some of the recent ones were involving nearly 10 or 11 resubmissions, so there's no convincing signs they will listen to a deletion notification after 11 times. When the user shows they understand, either in a talk page message or at the Draft, I will then comment at the Draft and state the concerns again, and if they're refused, that's why I nominate for deletion. Also, WP:Perennial proposals itself, stated that all users should place articles of interest in either their watchlist or similar list. Also, nearly every case of MfD-nominated, showed the user came back to the Draft and noticed the deletion, put aside the ones who were CU-blocked or spam-banned. I used to frequently notify users each time, but after time, it seemed it was simply no use if they simply restarted their campaigns again, thus wasting not only my time, but the server time and space. For example, with Scorpion293, I opened his SPI after his comments, simply to see what the comments would be, or else I would've simply gone to SPI in the first place, without notification. I've found no history where such a "Users absolutely must be notified" was ever close to being a fundamental WP pillar. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Server space isn't an issue. I doubt that server time is, either. The rest is irrelevant if you're mostly dealing with new contributors. You can't expect them to know about watchlists, perennial proposals or anything else like that. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Considering the number of times other editors have complained here about your 'work flow' and the very large number of nominations/patrols you make, it would be advisable for you to follow best practices rather than the rules don't require it and I don't feel like it. Things that are not issues when they are done a few times can often become problematic when they are done hundreds or thousands of times a week. Jbh^Talk 19:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, to add to my comment earlier, the repeated "N", "None of this suggests a notable article" (which actually explains itself), is because I especially them in speedy deletions, which mean they'll be deleted quickly. Also, N is for AfD because it's obviously stated what it means. Anyone of this would also follow the commonly used "Ce" (for copyediting), "sp" (spelling), etc. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but N is for AfD because it's obviously stated what it means - I have never seen another user use a single-letter designation to denote that they have nominated a page for deletion. Sure, I've seen "AFD" but never "N". It is far from obvious. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not obvious to me, either. But, in any event, the point about newbies applies again. If you know you're dealing with them then you have to make allowances. We probably all should, all the time, but we definitely should not all the time. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not good for new editor retention (although most of the people who have not received a notification are either spamming or are paid editors). The use of useless edit summaries by SwisterTwister is unhelpful, that's a behavioural issue we can insist they remedy whilst the failure to notify is unhelpful but BMK probably has it right when he says it's optional and ST is technically doing nothing wrong by not making use of the option.
  I'm far more concerned by Sam Walton's concerns, the lack of notifications could well be a symptom of hurried, rushed reviews. The failure to respond satisfactorily to queries from editors about reviews and deletions is a major concern.
  I'd hope ST would therefore agree willingly to use descriptive edit summaries, to leaving more notifications and above all, to provide far more detailed responses to those asking questions. Nick (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick: as per above, SwisterTwister appears to leave comments back at the AfC draft instead of on his talk page, so the appearance of a lack of response to questions (at least re. AfC drafts) is merely a facade- I noticed this as an AfC reviewer myself, as there would seemingly be random comments from SwisterTwister across a wide range of AfC drafts that weren't linked to a review, some investigation showed that these were actually in response to comments left on his talk page. It might perhaps be confusing for editors checking for a response on his talk page rather than their draft, but he is responding, at least to questions about AfC drafts. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This is where I get a little confused about this entire issue, Jcc. ST is perfectly happy to use AFCH for editing/reviewing drafts, but cannot/will not use Twinkle to notify users that their pages are being nominated for deletion? As far as scripts go, it's just as easy to use one as it is the other (moreso, given that with Twinkle you don't have to edit the AFD log directly). As mentioned by someone else, there are a ton of upsides, and almost no downsides. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's rude not to notify page creators that their article has been nominated for deletion, and to purposely do so is the opposite of collaborative. It's happened to me, and when I complained to the nominating editor, they self-righteously woofed that it's not required by policy. Sad that we would need such a basic social courtesy to be mandated by a written policy. What a great way to drive off contributors. - MrX 19:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Also, although I have never maintained a CSD or PROD log and I have no plans to because it's tedious, I will note that over 3/4 of my PRODs recently alone have been confirmed advertisements by either long-ago paid advertisers or recently CU-banned ones (given it's damaging enough keeping such paid spam for long here), so our policies would apply WP:RBI in it alone, given any notifications would only mean harboring attention. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• You're grasping at straws now. And if you really wanted to keep a log then Twinkle can do it for you (optional). - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While (again) I am not calling into question your accuracy with page deletion notices, WP:RBI only deals with obvious vandalism, so poorly-written or non-GNG pages don't meet this criteria. Additionally, since you keep no logs, do not notify the user, and you use pretty much the same PROD notice every time, I find it very hard to believe that you know for a fact that 75% of the PROD/CSDs you hand out are from verified socks and/or blocked paid editors. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a fact because both my now deleted contribs and the PROD that are currently still pending and standing are in fact from paid contributions, either shown from their contributions or by their own words. I'll even note the fact it was a paid advertisement in the PROD itself, making it easier to see. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You do realize paid editing is allowed (provided adequate disclosure), right? That doesn't make them automatically exempt from being notified that their work has been nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In this case, all users had specifically not confessed their COI payment and subsequently were banned (all last 3 cases had enough attention confirming this was the solution) and also CU-puppeting, thus there's no use if they're going to blatantly violate our policies when they know it. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Would you please start notifying users when you nominate their articles for deletion? It's a widely-accepted practice that costs you nothing and it will have a net positive benefit to the project. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this modest request.- MrX 21:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator noteI seriously doubt any admin is going to act on this thread. The reason is simple: while notifications are considered a best practice that are not and never have been required. We might prefer that this user use them more often, but they don't have to, any more than they have to use edit summaries. The only way this can be something enforceable is if someone proposes a formal restriction requiring this user to notify, and that proposal receives sufficient support from the community to become an enforceable editing restriction. I'm not suggesting that anyone actually do this, but as it stands right now it's the only way anyone can be forced to do notifications. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

True, but I was hoping they might bow to the morality of the point, especially given they haven't really got a decent reason not to do so. It seems, however, like that was a vain hope. I'll stop using edit summaries from now on. ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries are also not required but I remember an ANI case a month or so ago where someone was brought here because he didn't use summaries and the end result was that he was forced to use edit summaries. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It does potentially set a dangerous precedent when we tell one of our most prolific editors that they don't have to follow best practices. Sitush is making a POINT, but what if everyone who interacts with ST decides not to add edit summaries or notify users? I hope, to echo Sitush, that ST realizes that best practices are put in place for a reason, and the handful of outliers which he's mentioned are not the primary purpose of the notifications, but it's for everyone who has complained to one editor or another about their drat simply disappearing into thin air. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Sir Joseph: I have located the thread where a user was required to use clearer edit summaries.

There seems to be some consensus growing in this discussion that never notifying a user is more harmful than occasionally notifying a blocked sock. It's not like SwisterTwister has to bend over backwards to notify users - just install Twinkle! I still haven't seen a reason given as to why he doesn't use it, yet is happy to use AFCH for draft reviewing (so it's not an "I hate scripts" thing). Primefac (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not at all arguing that this isn't a real issue, but you can't expect admins to suddenly enforce a policy that doesn't actually exist. So, again, what would be needed would be either to change the policy, (which is being tried at theis very moment at WT:CSD) or propose an editing restriction on this particular user and try and get consensus for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, are you saying I should formally start a "Proposal", or would an uninvolved admin willing to close be able to read through the concerns and (if consensus) place an editing restriction/specification? Because the latter is definitely my position on the matter, and the reason I started this thread (The easiest thing to do would be to ask ST to use Twinkle when they nominate pages). Primefac (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

So far the only consensus I can see here is that ST should probably be notifying in many cases where the currently do not, I do not see anything more specific than that, so yes, if you want any actual action on this I would again suggest that a formal proposal for a logged editing restriction would be the way to go about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Beeblebrox 100%. For myself I add: Swister Twister should be encouraged to clearly explain his deletion nominations, namely with short but descriptive edit summaries, as that is good collaboration practice - with all of us, not just the editors who might be not receptive to comments. As to notifying users I see nothing wrong. (disclaimer: I rarely do any deletion nominations, but when I do I even more rarely notify users) Quite simply, if notifying users should be mandatory, then it is a clear case for a technical solution, not a 'social' solution. It should not be a editor to laboriously notify editors, it should be a automated notification sent to (almost) all article editors and watchers (or something along that line). Nabla (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a technical solution called Twinkle. As an admin, you absolutely should be notifying users if you nominate their articles for deletion. It's not laborious. - MrX 22:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I will agree with the other editors. I see no reason why anyone should complete an AFD, a complicated process, other than by using Twinkle, which takes care of all of the steps. When Twinkle is used, the default is to notify the creator. Just use Twinkle and notify the article creator (even if they are a sockpuppet). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, do you actually have any reasonable objections to using Twinkle? For example. I have no idea how well it works on mobile devices and whether or not that is your preferred means of editing. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrX:, Twinkle is not part of MediaWiki, when I mean technical I mean as part of the main software, like in having a "delete" button, no options, that's it, for everyone. @Robert McClenon: It works fine that way since 2004 or so :-) I do so very few nominations it is not much work, conversely, as it IS some work, it keeps me from doing more nominations. Also, I like to know my edits... I think I gave it a try once long ago and it felt weird, to me it is not "the wiki way". Also, the article creator does not have any special ownership, if anyone, the ones that should be warned are the ones watching it. @Sitush: I am not Swister Twister ;-) Nabla (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Notification isn't required. You can call it polite if you want, but it's not required. If we want to make it a requirement, change the policy. Explain in the edit summary? Why? If there is a AfD, the reason is there. If it's a CSD, the reason is in the category used. In my view, ST does more good for the project in getting rid of articles that don't belong than alleged harm by hurting the feelings of some theoretical newbie. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• D'uh. But they're unlikely to see the AfD or CSD. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Niteshift36, these aren't theoretical newbies. As mentioned in my OP, and as I've seen many times on IRC, there are many users who are confused and/or angry about their page being deleted with no notice given; their pages just vanish. Now, clearly it's not entirely SwisterTwister's fault, but due to his editing practices there is probably a larger number of well-meaning new editors who have quit because their hard work has been deleted with no warning. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the responses talk about what amount to theoretical newbies. Granted, there may be a few you can actually show, but much of this is about people who might be effected. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• SwisterTwister refuses to voluntarily take responsibility for cooperating with article creators, so the community should step in to create boundaries.  The problem with cryptic nominations should also be corrected, as "N" might not be noticed in a watchlist.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Here's how I handle the problem: before deleting an article/draft, I check and see who nominated it for speedy deletion. If it's SwisterTwister, I notify the page creator myself instead of performing the deletion. That way, the contributor gets at least some time to act. It's a waste of admin time to have to do this, but I'm not comfortable with deleting in cases where the page creator has not been notified. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Great. So SwisterTwister worries about wasting server time and space but we have an admin having to waste time trying to do "the right thing". And admin time is, I think, in much shorter supply. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is not an optimal solution, but it also isn't the first time I've noticed that Dianaa has more patience than I do. I do usually check the creator's talk page after I delete something, and if there is no notification there I will usually drop the appropriate warning or notice with twinkle. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In May 2016, I asked SwisterTwister to notify creators while nominating articles for any form of deletion, but they did not bother responding to my note or start notifying. Now if I see an article nominated by SwisterTwister I just don't act on it, I let another admin decide. Sadly, this behavior is a nuisance and should be stopped. —SpacemanSpiff —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I've asked him about that multiple times on IRC, but he's ignored me every time. It seems to me that he doesn't like criticism, which is understandable, but when many people are suggesting that you should do something, you should at least respond to them before you have an ANI made about you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

In order to ease the extra work put in by admins, to notify users when their pages have been deleted, and to decrease the amount of work he has to do (by eliminating the need to actually edit the WP:AFD page directly). I am proposing that SwisterTwister use Twinkle to perform all PROD/CSD/XFD actions. I am specifically proposing Twinkle because ST has declared that their time is valuable and they cannot be bothered spending extra time notifying users (which is fair), and Twinkle does that automatically. This minimizes the BITE factor of not notifying the users, and aligns more with best practices as mentioned on all of the deletion venues instructions. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. There is literally no downside to ST using Twinkle instead of manually editing, and fixes many of the issues I've seen regarding their deletion-tagging practices. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again, if we want it to be mandatory, make the changes in the process, not just imposed on a single editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment in which I hoped SwisterTwister would voluntarily agree to do this. This should also include the provision that he may not disable notifications in the Twinkle settings.- MrX 02:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support its not that big a deal to be expected to use Twinkle. If anything it makes ST's life easier. It will also hopefully save more ANI threads. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I have been concerned about this for some time—the lack of notifying the creator, the lack of a useful edit summary, and the failure to respond to new users posting on ST's talk page. ST is a prolific AFC contributor, and for many new editors is the first face they see. This is a step in the right direction. Bradv 02:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I support SwisterTwister being obliged to notify in each case, whether via Twinkle or manually. In spite of notifications not being mandatory, it's the right and polite thing to do. This behaviour is likely costing us editors, and it's wasting the valuable time of others – either the admin who notifies on their behalf, or the Teahouse host or help page patroller who responds to the editor's query and has to try to figure out where the missing page went. SwisterTwister should not be obligated to use Twinkle, but if he does not, he needs to notify manually for each nomination. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Adding: If he does his nominations manually, he needs to leave an informative edit summary when he places the deletion nomination on the article/draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Hopefully, they can do it using Twinkle but if there is some technical reason why that is not possible then I'm afraid it will just have to happen the hard way. I think my reasoning is clear enough from my prior comments in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose because of; I am proposing that SwisterTwister use Twinkle to perform all PROD/CSD/XFD actions. That is plain and simply unacceptable. Editors choose which tools they want to use and which tools they do not want to use. You cannot force someone to use tools they don't want to use.
  Despite that, I agree that ST's approach is bordering on being disruptive; at least one admin has stated they take additional time solely when deal with ST's CSD's and another has stated that they avoid them wholesale. This is on top of the already mentioned BITEness of a newbie editor having their work deleted and not given even a simple notification. I do, however, think that notifications should never be mandatory (or even recommended) for G3, G5, especially G10 and, for obvious redundancy reasons, G7. So while I can support requiring ST to make notifications, these requirements would be limited to genuine attempts at contribution. So, if I was going to support this restriction it would need to be clear that notifications are only going to be required for contributions that were made in good faith.
  Furthermore it would need to be extremely clear that ST can decide for themselves how they are going to meet those requirements. I can't tell whether the TWINKLE part is meant to mandate or recommend - I read it as mandate initially Actually, that is the meat of the proposal, so it is definitely intended to mandate. Otherwise, forcing ST to notify the page creator at all times risks doing a lot of damage even if it would also do a lot of good. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) So would you oppose if we just said ST had to notify by some means or another, rather than specifically by Twinkle? And, since we're supposed to assume good faith, what is the problem there? I've not got involved in past ANI reports about ST but this one really is at the limit. - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, SwisterTwister has expressed a strong disinterest in taking more time out of their day to go to editor's talk pages and add notices manually. I took this into account when I made the proposal, because using Twinkle saves him time just as much as it saves admins like myself and Diannaa from having to verify that a G12 notice was actually given. If ST says he's willing to notify without using Twinkle, I'm all for it, but I think that's an extremely unlikely outcome. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify myself here Sitush and Primefac; I agree that ST should notify good faith content contributors and indeed could support general enforcement of them doing so; just not for G3, 5, 7 (self-notificaton is dumb) and 10. However, while I can support making this mandatory, I cannot support telling them how to do it. It is one thing to say "you will notify article creators when you XFD their good faith work" and quite another to say "you will notify article creators using TWINKLE when you XFD their good faith work". So until the twinkle part is struck or clarified to be a recommendation only for ST's own benefit, I must oppose the measure in its entirety. Even without TWINKLE, I see no value in forcing them to notify attack page creators, vandals, and banned/blocked users and potentially see downsides to notifying them as well; edit-warring over the tag, creating new pages with similar content to "save" their work, spreading the vandalism to new pages, etc, etc. Editors can generally use their own heads to work out when a notification is needed and when it is not. That's why CSD "protocol" (I voted against the measure on the CSD talk page, hence why I am singling out CSD here) is to recommend notifications and not require them. Because ST isn't doing this, requiring them to do so to some extent is fine, but, not in its current form. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You make valid points regarding G5/7, and I can agree that there is little point in doing so (and no one would fault him for not notifying a G5 user). Unfortunately with no logs (and having no interest in trawling through deleted edit summaries), there is no way to see how many pages he nominates that are in those categories. I do know, however, that he nominates an awful lot of U5/A7/G11/G12 pages, which should always receive notifications (in addition to the 100+ XFD nominations made every month). While DENY and other all-caps shortcuts say we shouldn't feed the trolls, is it really that big a deal if a handful of talk pages get deletion notifications?

At the end of this, though, you've said your piece, and I respect that (I won't belabour the point any further). If consensus does follow your idea ("must inform, can do how he likes") I will support that; my main concern is just getting notifications out there. I just don't see it happening without Twinkle. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've revised my vote somewhat to better reflect my concerns - mostly format and clarity. I was tempted to reduce to plain oppose, but, I read your proposal again and I have to stick with strong oppose. The meat of the proposal is getting ST to use twinkle which does notifications immediately. That has its benefits, but, it crosses the line of what can and should be done. Thanks for your replies and explanations. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support a restriction of having to notify page creators when nominating an article for deletion (any type) but I'm not overly keen on forcing them to use Twinkle. A few months back I'd suggested to SwisterTwister that they decide when a notification may not be necessary, they have shown that they aren't able to do that. Therefore, a restriction like this is necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• oppose while I think he should notify, if it's currently not required then what authority do we have to single him out? If you want it required then change policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:RESTRICT and a recent precedent re: edit summaries. Have you read the thread in its entirety? -Sitush (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

He singled himself out by his refusal to follow the basic process that virtually every one else follows. The authority comes from our standing as a self-governed community.- MrX 02:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing he is doing is against policy. If you want notifications to be mandatory, then make it mandatory. I do think he's wrong for not doing it, and when I nominate I use Twinkle, but to punish someone for following the rule is wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Contra Niteshift36 and Sir Joseph, we don't need new policy (instruction creep) since there is no recurrent issue except with this editor. As MrX says, he singled himself out, so a singular remedy (wp:restrict) is perfectly valid. There may be occasional instances where it's better to not notify, so it's fine to leave an opening for that. But ST seems to be trying to game the system and turn "occasional" into "always". Per NOTBURO we shouldn't go along with exploiting loopholes like that. ST doesn't seem to be able to accept "occasional" so the alternative that should apply to him is not "always" but "never". 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I actually agree that it is creep. That is exactly why I opposed the proposal to make it mandatory at the CSD talk page. Requiring this individual editor to do something not required by policy is essentially process creep. The effect is the same in the end. So if it is to be required for him, just require it for everyone. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm saying the opposite: it's instruction creep to dictate a universal approach to something that most editors can handle by situational judgment and discretion. If some particular editor is found to repeatedly abuse their discretion, the remedy is restrict that editor, not hobble the other editors who don't have that problem. See also WP:CIR. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• We both recognize that requiring it would be creep. I disagree with the notion of singling him out for this "requirement".Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:CSD: "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination (or of the deletion if not informed prior thereto). All speedy deletion templates (using criteria other than U1, G6, G7, and G8) thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant party or parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used. You can copy and paste such warnings to the talk pages of the creators and major contributors, choose from others listed at Category:CSD warning templates, or place the unified warning template, {{subst:CSD-warn|csd|Page name}}, which allows you to tailor your warning under any particular criterion by replacing csd with the associated criterion abbreviation (e.g. g4, a7).". —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I understand that Spiff, but the key word there is "should" be warned. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• A must would require "all", but "should" would include most, and I'm mostly concerned about A7s, G12s where the creators are ill informed newbies (this is also applicable to some G11s). They are the ones who need a notification explaining why their article was deleted or is likely to be. Many people react differently, some run away when there's no explanation, some create socks to do the same thing and some do read the explanations and reform. There's one editor whose early contributions I deleted and subsequently short term blocked for copyvios, but they read the notifications and reformed themselves and are a prolific contributor to audited content now. I don't have any problems with no G5 notifications or even in the case of extreme spam, but as I requested ST last year, the A criteria deletions need some sort of explanation for newbies. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• If I have it right, there's SHOULD in something like the sense of RFC 2119 (they always write it in caps like that) and you want to change it to MUST. I don't see a need for that since we've done ok with SHOULD almost all the time. It's completely normal to single someone out for restrictions if they have trouble in an area where other people find their way ok. The alternative is to constrain everyone, when only the one person has exhibited a problem. I'm sympathetic with ST about spammers etc., but if it's inconveniencing other editors who find themselves placing notices out of felt duty to other humans, then we have to say ST's approach isn't workable. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support  SwisterTwister refuses to voluntarily take responsibility for cooperating with article creators, so the community should step in to create boundaries.  The problem with cryptic nominations should also be corrected, as "N" might not be noticed in a watchlist.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I was clear above who I notified, which are the people who understand how WP works, there's no sensibility in notifying the people who will sock and continue advertising hence those are not people who are "cooperating", my last PRODs an hour ago show the same persistent paid advertising we've encountered so heavily recently. For example, I was especially not going to notify the now-banned user Kavdiamanju after their spam campaigns. If it wasn't that I purposely watch for the robo-spam, there wouldn't be any other basis for putting such quick words. Also, as for the "N", anyone who edited that article would naturally look into it and especially once they see a "deletion template", which seems to always be the case when it's a still active user. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you've got other editors following you around to clean up after you, it's obvious that your judgment is being found wanting; and making frequent edits that trigger such interventions is disruptive by definition. So you're being asked to cut it out, or as the case may be, told to cut it out. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't you logged in to your account? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly because they don't have an account; they've been a relatively active IP editor for several months now. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This bickering is not helpful - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC) (nac)

@Mr rnddude: I think "misleading, counterproductive and ill-informed" is a very kind and slightly euphemistic description of your contributions on WP:ANI (not to mention my talkpage). I do not think you are intentionally misleading people; I think you post these comments without doing any research. The result is that you cause drama and mislead others. Maybe it is best if you don't post at WP:ANI, and stay away from other people's drama. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC) The Quixotic Potato ... Please don't project your issues onto me. Your above posts are irrelevant to the substance of this thread. They are devoid of meaningful discourse and are currently uselss. Even if you are correct about the IP which seems extremely far fetched given no evidence. Furthermore, the IP has made exactly one dozen comments on this page alone. Your statement stands as an accusation without base. As for your talk page ... I am disheartened to hear that you have learned nothing from that experience. It is your own posts you should worry about and in fact I implore you to do so. You came here explicitly to start drama on a entirely dramaless thread. If you want a look at unproductive (and unpleasant) then please review both of your comments here, then review all of mine. I will repeat it in explicit terms; if you make an accusation bring evidence. I told you this unequivocally last time, when you received a two week block, and you have summarily ignored it. I note you read my particularly long post on your talk page. You seem to have taken substantive issue with it, indeed you seem to have held a grudge for a month (nearly two) if you're bringing it up now. If you have issues about it User talk:Mr rnddude is open as always to anyone for anything. (I apologize for the dual ping, this is as a result of my comment being deleted in an unrelated edit and now restored). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Stop digging. If you would understand the situation then you would apologize to me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC) You know, that might be the case The Quixotic Potato - unlikely though, and you're deep underground if I am digging. However, I cannot understand the situation unless you give me something to work from that might explain it. My initial comment was an opportunity to expand upon what you said and bring something I could look at (or rather another editor or admin could look at) and then deal with. Not to swing an attack round at me. I have seen the above IP comment on different AN/I threads and even an arbcom case that I am tangentially aware of - I recognized the IP from the arbcom case personally and only just noticed them lurking in other threads. From my perspective you are slinging an accusation without evidence, if several admins, an entire arbcom panel, CU's and Oversighters haven't noticed anything the least bit suspicious over the course of three months, then you must concede that it might look odd if somebody came in guns blazing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC) It is offtopic here, and probably difficult to explain over the internet. Communication that is limited to text has disadvantages. But I am 100% sure that we would understand eachother better if we could talk IRL over a cup of tea. BTW there is a big difference between an accusation and a question from someone who is curious. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - seems like a reasonable request to solve this problem, which is very real. If SwisterTwister cannot be induced to notify in any other way, and I do believe not leaving notifications is a serious matter, this makes it easy for him. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support and if SwisterTwister does not want to use twinkle, an alternative is to manually notify the people involved. Inexperienced people may get away with not notifying, but ST is experienced. Some kinds of pages do not need notifications, such as G7 ot G6, however prod, G13, A7, A1, A3, AFDs should all be nominated for sure. It is helpful for other editors to see the notifications on the person's talk page too as it assists in undeletion or seeing problems. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I do not care whether they use Twinkle or do it manually (so long as the edit summary is at least marginally informative), but in general they have to notify people that their articles might be deleted. It's just common sense. I don't see a problem with carving out an exception for G5s and G7s, however. /wiae 🎄 12:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because he doesn't use Twinkle and shouldn't be forced to do so. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Perhaps this proposal should be re-phrased to state that ST must notify people manually each time instead. Or use Twinkle. First Light (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support And in reply to the above - this is like the the 5th deletion related complaint about ST. If they would just follow common convention and basic courtesy, there would not be a need. So frankly a restriction that allows them to keep doing what they want to do without in fact 'restricting' them at all seems quite fair. At this point I no longer have any good faith given the ongoing issues and assume they just a)want their nominations to fly under the radar, and b)have no intention of abiding by community norms. Again a restriction that forces them to follow that without stopping their work is really not a burden. If it *is* a burden to them to use basic courtesy in their editing, well the next option is an outright ban from those actions they cant seem to do without pissing people off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per common practice, courtesy, so easy to do with Twinkle, don't bite the newcomers, new editor retention, transparency, just for starters. First Light (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Editors are free to use whatever tools they like, and use their discretion on notification. For example, you should not notify the author on a G10, as that increases the likelihood that the defamatory material will be reposted. Others have already mentioned other criteria where notification may be redundant or harmful. SwisterTwister should be encouraged to use clearer edit summaries, and default to a notification when it is unclear, but this is a blunt solution, which is not acceptable. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Blunt solutions are used when editors are unwilling to follow reasonable alternatives. People have 'encouraged' ST plenty of times now. Its not had any noticeable effect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives to what? Following the rule? If you want people to be required to notify then make the policy change. As it stands now, you are punishing someone for following the rules. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A rule such as WP:CONSENSUS ? - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If a rule is not working for us, it's okay to ignore it. This is one of the five pillars even. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::Golly gee, then let's throw out all rules and determine how to proceed by mob rule at ANI, shall we? This is a preposterous solution. If you want notifications so badly, then change the policy, which I will be in favor of. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That's one of the interesting things about the opposers here. They're objecting on BURO grounds but actually do think ST is acting in a sub-optimal way, even though within policy. So apply some common sense, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• So, based on what I read, anyone who is opposing it is not applying common sense? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I said that already that ST should change. And I said that in the other case where we forced someone to use edit summaries even though it's not required. If something is not required, then it's not required. If you want it required, don't do it on a case by case basis, make it required all across the board. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you agree that ST should change, but don't like this proposal, would you consider bringing forward an alternate proposal? There's a clear consensus here that something needs to change, but just voting oppose to this proposal won't accomplish anything. Bradv 15:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support This is needed. It still doesn't solve the problems of ST ignoring virtually everyone who asks about their draft on his talk page, but at least people will actually get notified if their page was deleted. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  ThePlatypusofDoom, as mentioned earlier, ST responds to draft questions on the draft itself, not on his talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  Primefac: Good point(although I prefer responding on talk pages), I struck out the relevant material. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Yes it's not policy to notify anyone however it's courtesy and it's common bloody sense, I'm sure if ST had articles or files nominated without any notification then they'd probably get a little pissed (I certainly would be), It's just courtesy and common sense. –Davey2010^Talk 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - We haven't yet heard from the subject editor either why he doesn't use Twinkle or why he doesn't notify. Given the non-use of Twinkle, I can see that notifying is work, but it is still part of the job unless there is a reason not to notify, and there are no reasons not to notify for most speedy reasons and for PROD and for AFD. So why doesn't he use Twinkle when it would do the notifying automatically? Is there a reason why you don't use Twinkle, which would simplify your job, and why you don't notify? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't used Twinkle because there were some parts that concerned me including the fact the it has room for mistakes. I can openly use it at my choice but I never liked the fact there's no use in notifying a user who is so blatant with "Thank you for visiting our company website today, let me show you our company services". For example, what's our solution for when a user starts operating multiple accounts to advertise simultaneously? We notify the first account? SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging SwisterTwister on the off chance that he's not watching this thread to see the question. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor: Support. Per the reasons listed above by other users. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 18:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• support it may not be policy, but it is certainly courteous to tell an editor that their article has been nominated for deletion, the fact that ST nominates so many is what makes this an exception. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This seems like an end-run around community consensus, and peculiarly targeted at one particular user as an editing restriction, rather than addressing the root issue. If the editors here feel that these notices ought to be mandatory (and I tend to agree that they probably should), then they should be willing to do the leg work of getting consensus to change the wording of the relevant policy/process pages, not try to strong-arm the approach by making an example of one user and trying to dictate which tools they use. SwisterTwister (in fact, no editor) should be required to conduct themselves at a stricter standard of care than our policies explicitly require of any other editor--those policies exist precisely to inform our editorial corps on how to approach a particular issue and if they do not mandate a particular behaviour, it is unreasonable to require it of any given editor, no matter how reasonable it may seem to a particular group of editors. Wikipedia already has a solution for dealing with issues like this--it's called WP:PROPOSAL. If editors think that informing the author of an article of a proposed deletion should be elevated from recommended best practice recommendation to strict requirement, they should go to the PROD, CSD, and XFD talk pages to make that proposal within the community consensus process. Alternatively, they could make a joint proposal, (meant to apply to all three processes) at WP:VPP and promote it at WP:CD. The alternative approach being considered here is nonsensical (in that it solves the "problem" with regard to exactly one editor), flagrantly disregards the community consensus process (in that it requires a standard of conduct not vetted through WP:Proposal and in conflict with the existing wording of the instructions on those process pages, which were formed through community consensus, albeit for just one editor) and, if I am to be quite frank, just plain lazy (editors want to stick a band-aid on this issue with a quick !vote to restrict the editing of just one editor--while others will be free to ignore the same best-practice advice--rather than using the usual full proposal process to address the actual substantive matter, the wording of the instructions as they exist, which would require more leg work but would lead to a more stable and equally-applied approach).

In short, it is my opinion it is "best practice" to make sure the rules apply equally to all members of our community and that flaws in instruction are corrected at the source, not by micromanagement of one editor's conduct when he is actually technically in compliance with our community's instructions as they currently read... Snow ^{let's rap} 22:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see how you might have missed it in all this discussion, but there is in fact a proposal under discussion at WP:CSD to codify this for all users. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That's great; I'll have to make the time to comment in support of it, because it seems like a reasonable and pragmatic standard. But I still think it is a backwards approach to ban just one editor from this behaviour while leaving the rest of the community free to indulge in whichever interpretation they prefer in any individual instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - I don't particularly have an opinion about whether everyone should be required to notify -- if that's the community's choice, so be it, change the instructions and let's get on with life -- but I am strongly opposed to forcing a single specific user to do so while the existing policy makes it non-mandatory to do so. I'm especially opposed to forcing that editor to use a tool they don't ordinarily use. This really appears to be like unwarranted bullying on the part of the community for no great gain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support notifications. Whether by Twinkle -- to remove his excuse about how notifications are so much trouble -- or manually using Twinkle is against his religion. And please, no more garbage about how the "Rules don't require it!": doing the right thing shouldn't require absolute rules to force. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Having seen SwisterTwister in AfD debates, I would estimate that, at least 85% of the time he identifies an article as advertising, he's right. Which means that he should not be enforced by the community to perform what he usually correctly sees as wasted steps. That said, he also has a very high threshold for any article he sees as commercial speech. Granted, we seem to be seeing more and more, especially from overseas locations. I would advocate, however, that he voluntarily notify the article creator when there is any doubt that the article is created by a non-involved editor. There are some number of these that are good-faith creations by new users that have simply copied from a web site or press release, not knowing our standards on RS. We need to keep this in mind and not assume any "obviously poor" article is an attempt to inflict advertising on the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's nice. And since those cases are so obviously cut-and-dried, then notification shouldn't make the slightest difference.
• No one died and left Swister Twister in sole charge of what is or isn't suitable: THAT'S WHAT THE AFD DISCUSSION IS FOR. It's not something that should call for some sort of battlefield tactic to suppress input. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support the requirement that SwisterTwister notify users when nominating articles for deletion, support the use of descriptive edit summaries, oppose the requirement to use specific tools to achieve those requirements. Nick (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose- either make this policy for everyone, or drop the issue. Reyk _YO! 11:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm uncomfortable forcing an editor to use a specific tool in order to correct what the community is describing as a behavioral issue. If the intent is to get ST "to notify users when their pages have been deleted", then that should have been the proposal. Then it would be left up to ST to how he chooses to correct the behavior - either by doing it manually or using a tool. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - although I would personally rather all editors get such notifications I understand SwisterTwisters frustration with some editors. I believe in always applying Assume good faith in the hope that some will change behaviour, and Twinkle makes it quick and easy: however a policy that all users should be notified should be general and I can't support this special action against one editor. Either the rule should be for all or none. Also regarding the initial statement "In order to ease the extra work put in by admins" I would suggest the work required was much less than the work that is now required at AfC: since this incident was raised I've noticed the backlog at AfC is increasing daily and I've had two recent talk page queries about how long it takes for reviews. Maybe some of the supporters will jump onto AfC and help fill the void (I admit I have also had to step back from editing (inc AfC) so am partially to blame for the increase as well). I think if we had more of the experienced editors helping at AfC than maybe this issue would have been muted. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think raising AfC here may be confusing that and New Page Patrol, unless SwisterTwister has been frequently responding to AfC submissions with deletion nominations? But note that I and others who used to help out once in a while at NPP can no longer do so because it's been limited to use of the page curation software and access to that is now a user right that must be requested; the bureaucracy is limiting the ability of experienced editors in general to help out. I reiterate, however, that deletion nominators are already expected to notify at least the page creator; the templates come with copiable notification templates to facilitate that; and it is not an onerous requirement, even if it were not basic courtesy and common sense, to use someone else's words above, and even if not done through Twinkle. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the mandatory use of a specific gadget. We may, and should, discuss the level of collaboration shown in (the lack of proper) edit summaries; or if there should be more notifications and talk, and if making lots of nominations in a row is somewhat disruptive, and so on; but forcing a specific gadget on a user is too much. Nabla (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support that he must use Twinkle or equivalent means of notification (such as manual). He would find that Twinkle automates the routine steps in a nomination and saves enormous amounts of time for the nominator, making him more efficient and productive at the small cost of giving notices to people he thinks are not deserving of them. He has not yet provided a good reason for not doing so, except that he seems to Assume Bad Faith on the part of article creators. What he is doing is creating extra work for administrators (who feel they have to treat his nominations differently, or even perform the notifications themselves) as well as driving away potentially productive editors, many of whom probably bad-mouth Wikipedia for the rest of their lives. IMO his actions and attitude are harming Wikipedia, and the only alternative to this kind of requirement is that he agree not to nominate articles for deletion any more. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I respectfully disagree that new editors are entitled to be notified that their articles have been tagged, and I especially disagree with Primefac's suggestion that they must be given an opportunity to respond. By design, the criteria for speedy deletion only apply to deletions that are beyond debate; allowing new editors to "defend" their creations creates false hope and wastes everyone's time. I share Tazerdadog's concerns that this proposal is overly broad (requiring a specific tool; requiring notifications for bad-faith creations) and Snow's concerns that singling out SwisterTwister for restriction is an attempt to create new policy without going through the proper process.

  That said, I support requiring SwisterTwister always to use edit summaries that plainly indicate the possibility of deletion when applying CSD, PROD, or XfD tags. Rebbing 12:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I don't see the basis for your objection. If nominators are infallible, then why is there information in the notification templates about appealing the speedy deletion nomination? Surely it's conceivable that even SwisterTwister is occasionally mistaken; or that a new editor (especially) didn't realize some aspect of the requirements for a new article? Also, SwisterTwister nominates a lot of articles for AfD, not just for speedy deletion. By definition, those require a discussion. I suppose you may be assuming the article creator looks at their watchlist; not everyone does, especially new editors who are unlikely to be aware of it. In the final analysis, it's true, no one is entitled to anything. But a volunteer who writes us an article is, I think, entitled to the basic courtesy of being informed that it's been nominated for deletion, under our civility pillar. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think an editing restriction of "required to notify unless [insert exceptions here]" would be better, but this works. I think that if ST CFD's something and notifies the user without using Twinkle, and that is brought here as evidence to request a block, that the editor bringing it should be immediately boomerang blocked for wikilawyering, assuming bad faith and harassment (because at that point, such would be the only reasonable explanation for why they did so).

Note: There needs to be exceptions. For example, requiring ST to notify all accounts in an SPI is arduous and counter-productive. The same goes for drafts which have been submitted and rejected numerous times and a few other cases. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support this shouldn't be necessary, but here we are. The Twinkle aspect is non-binding in my opinion. The important thing is that page creators are notified when their pages are tagged for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly per above opposes. This should either apply to everybody or nobody. VegaDark (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This should either apply to everybody or nobody. I would notify, as would most editors, but if it needs to be made mandatory, make it so. No evidence is even really offered that the effect of ST not doing so is/has been disruptive. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BITE. It really does not need evidence, although common sense would dictate that there will be some. You're another one who seems to be using BURO, given that you acknowledge that you would notify if it were you in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Mainly yes, I fixed rule should be a fixed rule for all, or exercise judgement for all, otherwise I want some evidence of disruption, not the presumption that it must be so. Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose bureaucracy creep is problematic and most "new users" you'll find aren't interested in editing more than whatever they've started on. Time vets helpful editors: a wannabe contributor learns the lessons like we all did but keeping improper articles off of Wiki is a thankless job and to mandate those who take their time to do it only do it in some preferred way only leads to less people willing to NPP and more dreck in the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as some kind of mob lynching. ST has not violated any policy. They are not required to inform page authors and have the right not to, as long as the policy remains as it is. I for one rarely notify page creators when I tag their articles – there is simply no point: If the subject is non-notable then no amount of cleanup will change this; If the page is a complete copyvio it may as well be deleted since anything would require a complete rewrite; If the article is nonsense or a hoax then notifying the user just gives them the opportunity to remove the tag. Laurdecl ^talk 06:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This has gone on long enough. The community has wasted countless hours of time dealing with ST's deletionism. Since the solution is quite simple and actually makes his entire deletion-related work easier, I see absolutely no logical reason not to support this. The argument that "it is not required" and "we have no right to" disappears when this user has been brought to this forum a ridiculous number of times for deletion-related issues. The next step will need to be ArbCom and a possible exclusion from any deletion-related activities. This is simpler. Also note that, via ANI, the community recently made a similar and related requirement of another user (whose name escapes me) whose nearly entire edit history was deletion nominations. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose On the support side we have people saying he should do all the work that he says he would prefer and on the oppose side we have it's not policy so he shouldn't be expected to do the work he doesn't want to do. I agree with modification of policy and I believe Vandalism is a good place to look on how to deal with these sorts of situations. "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." It is authoritative and clear in policy on a subjective matter whereas looking at CSD it states "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." is sounds more of a mere suggestion with the words "generally considered" and "courteous" if the proposal can not be clear and concise it seems reasonable that SwisterTwister wouldn't go extra effort 600 times to be "courteous". Because I have no stance on how a user should be informed I believe which tool they decide to notify the user is up to them. I believe modification of the proposal could help create a case in a future incident discussion but as it is written currently I don't believe there is clear enough wording in the CSD to act. I believe there is a clear issue that an actual user could risk being confused by the deletion as Niteshift36 mentioned he has had confused people in IRC before. But until we make it clear that attempts notification should be made then a case of "Well the user should have been notified but you clearly made no attempts at contact" would be a good starting point. MINIMAN10000 (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I genuinely despise the fact that users decide to universally not send others any sort of notification for deletions; I have dealt with angry users time and time again who've accused me of unilaterally deciding to delete a page or media file, abusing the administrator tools, being a communist/fascist/whatever, and so on. Whatever justification SwisterTwister and users with the same sentiment share is complete shit. But I simply can not stand behind the enforcement of a non-existent policy, or the implementation of an unenforceable and wildly bureaucratic one. Are we really going to start blocking users for this? "You have been blocked indefinitely for continued failure to send proper deletion notifications." That's insane. By all means, strongly encourage users to send out notifications, but trying to enforce it through policy is simply unrealistic. SwisterTwister also seriously needs to get a grip. — ξ^xplicit 01:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. For this proposal to go through (with no prejudice against requiring notification in general), the relevant guidelines really should require notification first. ANI isn't the place for changing that. At the end of the day, it is a courtesy under current standards to notify the page creator, but it's also redundant to some degree. Creating a page also places it automatically on your watchlist. Plus, uninvolved editors are the ones really deciding if the page is truly notable or not. With that in mind, it's not the end of the world if someone doesn't notify a page creator. If the community wants to require notification like we do for WP:AE, etc., then make that change first. Otherwise we're putting the cart before the horse by focusing on this proposal now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Voluntary commitment proposal / alt proposal: temporary Twinkle use but no forced notification

The proposal above seems to be gathering steam for ST to be forced to notify (even if maybe not by Twinkle).

I think ST should not be forced to notify since that is not policy and there are cases where it is justifiable not to do so. However, ST complained that notifying would disrupt their workflow, which is not as much as an objection against notifications than a convenience problem. Despite what was mentioned before, I do believe that is a "I don't want to change my habits" situation.

SwisterTwister, are you willing to give Twinkle a try? There is an option to not notify the user. You could use "notification" by default, and turn it off in the cases where you think it unwarranted. By "give it a try", I mean performing a few nominations with it (say, 10) to demonstrate that you really tried it - even if afterwards you revert to the previous workflow, the learning time will be sunk cost and you would have no inertia incentive not to use TW.

If ST does not agree, I still think that a coercitive proposal along the lines of SwisterTwister must use Twinkle to perform his next 10 PROD/CSD/XFD actions is better than the current proposal (the limit could be in days/weeks, but there must be no notification obligation). It is temporary, which makes it more educative than punitive, and I have reasonable hopes that ST will, indeed, find the use of Twinkle agreeable even if forced at it at first. I agree that forcing a tool to use has no precedent, but in this precise case I can see a good chance that it would end in a win-win situation. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, I will note that my latest notifications have been manual ones. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• You mean like when you tagged Global Traveler for deletion? Oh wait, you didn't. And you also left one of your uselessly obscure edit summaries ("N") when you placed the AFD notice. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• That is precisely the problem I see, SwisterTwister: if you are forced to make manual notifications, it will consume a lot of time, and you might be tempted to skip them. If on the other hand, you are forced to use a tool that allows easy notifications, you will have no laziness incentive to skip them - though you could still skip them, as possible per policy.

What is your answer to the voluntary Twinkle commitment I proposed? I realize that is a bit of a blackmail ("pledge that or something worse will happen"), and it might be already too late to avoid the previous proposal, but lesser of two evils and all that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing for it, but I'll note that it's quite unlikely I would become tired of notifying, as it's parallel to all my other activities here. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Since notification is automatic by default, I'm curious as to how you could become tired of it. Does it take a lot of effort to NOT check a box? --Calton | Talk 11:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

ST is currently not using automated tools for AfD etc., and so is notifying manually. (I do not understand what it's parallel to all my other activities here is supposed to mean though - surely, time spent in manual notifications is not spent elsewhere.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• COMMENT ST's behavior issues consume a LOT of time on this board. I do not understand why an administrative block has not been placed by now.104.163.150.250 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's because those wanting him blocked, despite being very tenacious and insistent about it, have not made a good case for it. Reyk _YO! 12:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    • An explanation seems called for here. We don't block simply for consuming a lot of time (at the noticeboards or otherwise), nor do I, for one, want to see SwisterTwister blocked. But I regard him as a problem editor. No evidence has been put forth that he is now notifying editors when he nominates articles they created for either speedy deletion or deletion through AfD. Notifying them is strongly recommended at the pages on both deletion processes. Not doing it is a violation of community norms and is at a minimum high-handed, and the argument that he doesn't have time is invalid: not only do most of us perform the notifications (including myself, although I do not use automated processes at all), but not doing so is at a minimum high-handed toward the editors in question; to my mind it is inherently hostile, The partial justification SwisterTwister presents above, that some of those editors have a COI or are simply spammers, is classic ABF. We are required by WP:CIV, one of the 5 pillars, to assume good faith. SwisterTwister is placing absolute faith in his own nose for what should be deleted, and the damage to Wikipedia from driving off even one well-meaning editor in this way is real. Moreover, the article creator is often in the best position to find and add the needed sources once they know they are needed; by not giving them that opportunity, SwisterTwister has conceivably damaged the encyclopedia by causing articles on notable topics to be deleted that could have been saved. The argument that SwisterTwister's deletionist mindset—or his specific focus on COI articles—makes his work valuable to the encyclopedia ignores these serious considerations with his (intentionally or not) callous and selfish cutting of corners in the process. If SwisterTwister will not start notifying article creators as a general rule—as the instructions already state should be done—then the answer is not for others to continue checking his contributions as a problem editor, but for him to be required to use an automated method that puts an end to the problem. And he did not do so after the last AN/I, which focused on this precise problematic aspect of his editing, and is still not saying here that he will do so. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: "the last AN/I", would it be useful to this discussion if someone could look up and link to the previous times he has been brought to AN/I over his tagging practices? --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • • It's because those wanting him blocked... Who would those be? I see one IP expressing surprise that ST hasn't been blocked and one editor lamenting that it may come to a choice between ST leaving notifications or being blocked. Do you have a non-imaginary case to make? --Calton | Talk 11:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Do a search of SwisterTwister's name on ANI. You'll find at least four or five threads complaining about him for very strange, often mutually contradictory, reasons and for most of these consensus is against blocking or otherwise sanctioning him. If someone is surprised ST hasn't been blocked, they should remember that people only get blocked if there's a good reason presented for it, and that hasn't been done. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
          • This blocking thing seems to be a red herring. Is anyone actually suggesting a block in this thread, aside from the snippy aside by the anon. Those who have commented about ST's contributions seem generally to be appreciative of what they do, although not necessarily of how they do it. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
            • That's exactly the point. Nobody's asked for ST to be blocked in this thread, or made anything resembling a good case for it in any previous thread. Thus it's actually not surprising that ST has not bee blocked. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Exempt certain CSD criteria from the above proposal?

The above proposal looks quite certain to be adopted, however there are some concerns about notifications for certain criteria being redundant or counterproductive. Assuming the above restriction is adopted, should any criteria be exempted, and if so, which ones?

Exempt G3, G5, G7, G10, and X1 Tazerdadog (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I want SwisterTwister to form a new habit of notifying, as the instructions say should be done (I believe the only reasons the instructions don't say you must notify are that they are concerned with all major contributors to the article, and it is often a judgement call who to include in that). And I don't want to encourage the excuse of their thinking their judgement as to whether an article is purely promotional or a hoax is infallible; that violates WP:AGF, apart from the fact that nobody's always right, about every subject area. So better to err on the side of always notifying. Hence I support the Twinkle requirement, because that makes it automatic and painless for him. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Right now the raw !vote stands at 21 support/ 13 oppose, or 61% support. That looks to me like a proposal that could go either way, not one that "looks quite certain to be adopted". In my view, whether the suggested sanction is imposed on ST or not rather depends on the quality of the arguments presented, and since the opposes (of which I am one) are in large part based on the actual existing language of the CSD policy, and the supports have largely failed to establish that sufficient harm is being done to justify such a punitive sanction (yes, it's punitive, since it's not preventing any violation of policy), it's actually fairly likely that it will not be imposed, but will either be closed with no action taken or allowed to scroll off the board. That said, ST should take in the "sense of the community" that many people are unhappy with his habit of non-notification, and consider changing his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. It is difficult to prove that deviating from the practise followed by most people has actually caused problems precisely because it is difficult to follow what is going on, both with notifications and the peculiar way they respond to queries about articles made on their talk page. Nonetheless, it is common sensical that non-notification is likely to piss some people off and/or discourage them from future participation, and that there is at least a self-admitted assumption of faith/unilateral conclusion being made across a wide range of articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Certainly I know that the comments on the proposal are not votes - that is why I wrote "!vote" above. Nevertheless, you are as aware as I am that looking at the numbers can be helpful in determining where a discussion is heading. As for ST, I repeat, forcing them to notify, when the policy does not require notification, is inherently a punitive measure. If you want to make notification a policy requirement, then change the policy, that's the very simple answer to all of this. If, as various people have said, ST is practically the only editor in the Wiki-verse not to notify, then changing the policy should be a piece of cake, and we've avoided punishing someone for violating a policy that does not, in fact, exist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • How is it a punishment? It will make his life easier (if he opts for Twinkle, anyway). It will also make life easier for everyone else. ST's only objections thus far appear to be fairly specious and related to a subset of all that he does in this area. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • The point is, even those who are opposing (your 39%, give or take) are saying that he really should be doing it. They're just arguing that he cannot be compelled to notify. But he can be per RESTRICT. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
        • To force someone to do something they're not inclined to do, and are not required to do by policy, and to use a tool to do it they do not normally use, and don't seem to want to use, in order to prevent nothing but the possibility of something happening, is punishing the user for not doing things the way you want them to be done, without your taking the step of requiring that it be done by changing the policy. That's punitive by any definition. Change the policy, then if ST doesn't follow it, he can be sanctioned, but not before. You are, in effect, putting the cart before the horse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• I would agree with that amendment, if the proposed restriction was to pass. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see a consensus for the proposal but those who love bureaucracy would like it. The creator of an article has no more WP:OWNership of the article than any other editor. There is a centralized discussion on whether such notices should be mandatory and there, not here, should be where the matter is decided. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• fwiw, I've been arguing that notification should be required in normal circumstances ever since I cam here. There has in the past been some difficulty in defining the circumstances in which it should not be required. Personally, I think even vandalism should be notified, because it serves as information for those who may encounter the editor later. The key problem, as usual around here , is harassment. And if a built in routine does something absurd like notifying myself, I just delete the notice. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't we have a system where if an article is added to the AFD page, it will automatically inform the article's creator (or major contributor if possible) with the help of a bot. Many bots runs on the AFD page anyhow, and adding this functionality will not be a major ask (can't do it myself as I am noob in programming). I happen to be another user who nominates AFDs without notifying users. Jupitus Smart 10:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Roll on the next report

Clearly, Beeblebrox was right in the comment on 29 Jan where it was suggested that no admin would take action. I've never participated in any of the prior ANI thread regarding ST and I do acknowledge that they do much good work... but roll on the next report. It will happen because they're fundamentally wikilawyering. Even those who support no action in this thread almost all accept that lack of notification is not how they personally do things. They, too, are basically wikilawyering. At what point does WP:IAR kick in, and WP:BITE? This is likely to be an intractable problem involving one person - it does not need a change of policy or guidance to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Slow-mo edit-warring/gaming the system on Shotgun slug

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

---

For about three weeks now Winged Brick has been edit-warring against multiple other editors on Shotgun slug to get their own personal interpretation of a source into the article, in spite of a discussion on the article talk page clearly showing that other editors do not support the edit. Having made dozens of reverts so far (see page history, which shows the extent of it better than a few diffs), and gaming the system by always making sure they don't exceed the three reverts per 24 hours rule, a rule they're well aware of since there are multiple edit-warring warnings on their talk page.

Since they never exceed the magical three reverts per 24 hours there's no point in reporting them at WP:AN3, but the behaviour is unacceptable and needs to stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This was reported at ANEW: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive336#User:Winged_Brick_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 but was ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: You can most definitely be engaged in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule. They are not the same. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Three reverts per 24 hours isn't so magical. Blocked for 48 hours for slow edit warring against multiple editors, with no indication that they'll ever stop. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC).

@I JethroBT: I know, the chance of action being taken at the edit-warring noticeboard is very slim, though, when reporting someone who hasn't exceeded the magical three reverts (see Andy's comment above), which is why I reported it here and not there. (Thanks for swift action, Bish!) - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Single-purpose account promoting geocentrist and paleo-Catholic Robert Sungenis

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

---

Joe6Pack (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account whose sole purpose on Wikipedia has been to advocate for Robert Sungenis's peculiar beliefs. He has been doing this in contravention of many different Wikipedia policies in spite of having them explained to them continues to insist that he should be able to whitewash and include only promotional material at the articles related to his pet subject.

I submit literally his entire contribution history as evidence of this. As a flavor for his promotionalism, see, e.g., this.

jps I do not think this user's activities are conducive to WP:ENC.

If a movie about the Copernican Principle is characterized a a movie about geoicentrism, I would argue that that isnot conducive to WP:ENC. Encyclopedias should be factual.16:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

jps (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Joe6Pack (talk · contribs) Appears to have been editing Robert Sungenis's page since the 9th of this month, his accounts first edit was 4 years ago, nor has he only edited geocentrist and paleo-Catholic Robert Sungenis as far as I can tell. It may be the bilk of his edits (I will let others look into that) but that does not make his account a sole purpose one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not true. I participate in other articles also. I made changes due to BP:WLP issues, and have an open case on the WP:BLP noticeboard for the Robert Sungenis article. Joe6Pack (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is the link to the noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_Sungenis Joe6Pack (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Correcting false statements (in the case of your statement that The Principle is a film about geocentrism when in fact it is about The Copernican Principle) is not "whitewashing". I allowed the statement that it considers geocentrism because in fact geocentrists were interviewed (as were standard model scientists). 16:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This is just the same-old bullshit from people who are deep in rabbit holes of their own pet theories. "It's not geocentrism, it's rejecting the Copernican Principle!" might as well be the new, "It's not creationism; it's intelligent design!" Only with people who think the Sun revolves around the Earth. In any case, not conducive to effective encyclopedia editing. jps (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you just stick the the accusation of a SPA and not move the content dispute here? I think both users interaction with each other needs looking into.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I not permitted to defend against charges? His accusation is based on the dispute, which just started today. He did not even try discussing with me. Joe6Pack (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course you are allowed to, but it is not the best tack to take. You are better of arguing against (and providing evidence) that his assertions you are an SPa and that he has (literally) provided your whole edit history are false.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

M+By the way, the charge is being a SPASlatersteven (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Joe6Pack would have great difficulty demonstrating that he is not a SPA. He doesn't have to edit only the Sungenis article to be a SPA. His editing history shows that he edits related articles and related topics and has been on a crusade since he started editing here. He's pretty much WP:NOTHERE. Rather, he is here to pursue his own personal agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, I just found it interesting (and maybe telling) that he has not only edited pages on this subject (and for awhile (well a day) seemed obsessed with the woman's march (over 10 edits in one day). I think it is more a sign of an edd who gets bee's in his bonnet. It is clear he has a special interest in the Copernican Principle film yes. I am not sure that adds up to a SPA.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: Slatersteven (talk · contribs) and I don't get along because I consider him to be too incompetent to make meaningful contributions. He generally follows me from place to place making a nuisance of himself. jps (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? I follow you around? Maybe I had a conflict with you before, but I certainly do not recall it. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What subject areas are you accusing me of being incompetent? Are you going to go to the Talk page and discuss? Joe6Pack (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm, maybe not an SPA but I think the accusation of WP:NOTHERE is a valid one, end of my "defense" I think, I think you lost this one 6er.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at Joe6Pack's edit count is illuminating: It shows 416 edits since December 2013, with 226 of them in 2017. Here is a copy/paste of the articles/talk pages to which Joe6Pack has contributed the most:

Article

• 103 The Principle - contribs. (propaganda movie for geocentrism)
• 66 Robert Sungenis --contribs (executive producer of The Principle who was described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "a man who would develop into one of the most rabid and open anti-Semites in the entire radical (Roman Catholic) traditionalist movement." ref)
• 13 2017 Women's March -- contribs. These are egregiously bad edits, and Joe6Pack tried to edit war them in. See below.
• 8 Lawrence M. Krauss - contribs (physicist interviewed for The Principle who repudiated it after seeing the trailer)
• 6 Sarah Silverman - contribs (edits are about her statements about Trump)
• 5 Kate Mulgrew - contribs (narrator of The Principle who repudiated it after seeing the trailer)

Talk

• 53 Talk:Robert Sungenis - contribs
• 12 Talk:2017 Women's March -- contribs.
• 11 Talk:The Principle (contribs)
• 2 Talk:Sarah Silverman -- contribs

POV pushing, bad edits include and are (by far) not limted to:

• this from just today, edit warring at The Principle over content that is only in the lead and not in the body. (NB. Per the source there, Mulgrew who narrated the movie, and physicists who were interviewed, reacted after seeing the trailer which made the pseudoscience thrust of the movie clear). Joe6Pack's edit makes it seem like they are reacting to ....nothing. This is both BLP and PSCI violating editing as are pretty much all their edits about this movie and the related people, as noted by others above already.
• this bit on Sarah Silverman, edit warred to restore it. More BLP violations.
• at the Women's March article, first added this badly sourced, UNDUE, obviously politically pointy content, then tried to force it in with edit warring here and here. Participation on talk is nonsense - see section: Big Joe and ABORTION

As is clear from their edits and behavior, Joe6Pack is here to advance some kind of paleoCatholic/paleoconservative agenda and is not here to build an encyclopedia. Proposing to indef them below. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: indef Joe6Pack for POV-pushing in violation of BLP and PSCI

• Support, as proposer. I have seen nothing but bad quality edits advancing their POV and violating key WP behavior and content policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support after reading through this thread, specifically the talk page discussion in the last, where he attempted to shift the argument from one over whether reliable sources exist for the proposed addition to whether or not abortion is moral. That's not a red flag; that's a fleet of red ships with red sails flying red flags, backlit by a red sunset. Seen through red-tinted lenses. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've reviewed this material and don't see any reason to take this to a vote. Their goals here are clear enough, and a block is the appropriate response, so I'm going to block them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Steve salis

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

---

The article Steve Salis was speedy deleted three times and protected from creation this month, it has recently been recreated with a lower case "s" in the title Steve salis in order to circumvent the protection, can an admin take look please. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally would suggest an AfD because by this point it is well past CSD criteria and previous deletes by CSD are not reason for deletion I'm afraid. If it fails AfD then any recreations can be deleted and salted... Just a non admin opinion EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• User_talk:JzG#Disagree_with_speedy_deletion EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem at Talk:Donald Trump

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

---

See the following: [71] I closed the section with {{collapse top}}, and it was restored twice by the user Govindaharihari in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:ADHOMINEM. User in question also ignored my requests to adhere to policy at [72]. The user was aware of this message as he responded in association with his second revert [73]. It may be helpful to read the entire thread in order to grasp the issue better. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Where was the violation? I don't see anything actionable here. You are involved in a content dispute and to me it seems you are grasping at straws trying to get one of your "opponents" knocked out of the race. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just got a note about this. I tried to communicate with the user and asked him more than once to stop hiding comments and to ask an administrator to comment or to hide the chat if it was required and to explain, he repeatedly hid our talkpage chat without any administration so I look forward to an answer, I will be available for replies for a couple of hours, thanks. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no violation of policy by Govindaharihari in the link you have posted. The fact that you have previously advocated a position in clear breach of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP about the article subject (a position that was unsurprisingly soundly rejected by the other editors who participated in the talkpage) is relevant to the current discussion, and Govindaharihari is entitled to refer to it. Your participation in relation to Donald Trump shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies and appears to demonstrate a tendentious insistence on adding inappropriate negative content to the article. I recommend that you read WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE carefully before continuing to participate in the discussions on that page. WJBscribe (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The violation was in removing the hat. I do not any suggest any action be taken against the user at all, apart from clarification that ad-hominem is not permissible and that the correct approach to such a violation is hating the content in question. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, there was no violation. His comment was fine. I suggest you stop while ahead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and that is fundamentally because it is verifiably not true. What WJBscribe wrote above is frankly even more so a violation of WP:ADHOMINEM as it is a content-dispute which I never treated as anything else. Categorizing dissenting views are lacking understanding of policy is ad hominem and very much violation of WP:CIVIL, and I encourage more eyes on the issue and the page. I however do not have more time and will leave it at this, and would be very happy if someone where to hat the section by Govindaharihari, even if this is mostly a formality and only to clarify the correct response to personal attacks. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC) 

If you can't see that his post was not an attack, perhaps you should stay away from Trump pages, if it's clouding your judgement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As I look a little closer at this issue, I see that you (CFCF) are making comments on the talk page that could violate our BLP policy. I suggest you drop this issue before action is taken against you. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

IP hopper deleting content from India articles

A person is removing content and sources from Indian articles. After a number of reverts, the person switches IPs and repeats with similar ES. The IPs geolocate to San Francisco, Japan, and S. Korea.

• 69.167.30.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.146.190.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.100.20.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.247.253.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some of the articles being edited include:

• Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ministry of Textiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• INS Dweeprakshak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of government space agencies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure what the person's agenda is, but the removals don't match the explanation. 09:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Jim1138: please sign with four tildes, not five. I'll try to look at this later. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

• 103.27.223.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Just started. Jim1138 (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting: (note, not showing up as an "undo". No alerts from the reverts.

• Madras Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Indian Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• INS Kamorta (P28) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kalvari-class submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of active Indian military aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Robin K. Dhowan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jim1138 (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• 45.120.200.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Now active Jim1138 (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been quiet for awhile. Jim1138 (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sure it's quiet right now, Jim1138. 59.146.190.114, 103.27.223.240 and 45.120.200.122 have all been blocked for 31 hours recently, and the other two haven't been active for some time. I'm sorry to say I hardly think the problem is over, though; the blocks will soon expire and apparently the individual (as I take it to be) has no trouble accessing new IPs. Semi is always a possibility, but so many articles are affected! :-( Bishonen | talk 15:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Adding: It's all a matter of fiddly small-scale adminning, I'm afraid, Jim. Materialscientist has done quite a bit of blocking and semiprotection. I've now added a couple of weeks' semi to List of government space agencies, List of active Indian military aircraft and Robin K. Dhowan. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

User:Athena1326 WP:NOTHERE

Athena1326 (already warned [74]) has repeatedly removed a cited criticism from the Noel Gallagher article ([75][76][77]). On top of this, he/she has gutted from Oasis album article (What's the Story) Morning Glory? a well-referenced mention of the Gallagher brothers' celebrity wives helping to increase their public profiles ([78]), and chopped cited text from the Slade article mentioning their influence on Oasis ([79]). Basically, Athena1326's only purpose on Wikipedia is to deify Oasis and bandleader Noel Gallagher by removing material that suggests they were bolstered/influenced by others or have musical weaknesses.

Also, an IP (probable sock) continued Athena1326's agenda at Noel Gallagher today ([80]). 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:1194:4FC:48AD:A32E (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"NOTHERE" is jargon that should be used sparingly.

There seems to be a content dispute here. Please discuss it at Talk:Noel_Gallagher#One_of_the_most_overrated.3F, which I have started up for you for this purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what I was about to say. "NOTHERE" means that someone does not intend to contribute constructively to Wikipedia; they're "not here" to build an encyclopedia. It carries negative connotations about an editor's intentions, not unlike labeling someone's edits vandalism or trolling. This is a content dispute, and when you have a disagreement with somebody, the best thing you can do is talk to them about it. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, although you say Athena1326 is "already warned", you did not warn this user that there was a discussion here. Neither did you warn the IP. (That's despite "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" in bold lettering on an orange background when you edit here.) I've warned them both. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Impersonation of User:BethNaught

The following discussion is closed. 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:Cfgvhbj is actively impersonating BethNaught at AfD. This could be a real doppleganger account, but it looks most unlikely. I have put a note on BethNaught's talk page.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. Impersonation is something Nsmutte does often. Sro23 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Qwertyufg (talk · contribs) indeffed, same MO. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted my close, because of the new one. Is there any way to set an edit filter to catch these? Or is NPP (does NPP look at userpages?) or Recent Changes going to be enough? Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm less than knowledgeable about edit filters, but a filter that catches replication of userpages might be interesting... GAB^gab 04:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

NPP does not normally patrol user pages, despite the fact that there is, for some reason, a running log of unreviewed pages in user space. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, when you say "log", do you mean they are actually logged somewhere, and if so, can you post the link? Or by "a running log" do you simply mean "an amount of" or "a number of"? Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

They're here, possibly other places as well. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears none of them are unpatrolled, so I'm assuming there were no more impersonators, and this thread may be closed. Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's odd. I posted the link from a bookmark without examining it. I doubt that even half have been patrolled. Before NPP was a separate user group, I occasionally patrolled new user pages. It may be that since the change user pages are no longer marked as unpatrolled. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost all of them show up as yellow and unpatrolled in the list just now... Anyway, this particular troll's activities shift - impersonating BethNaught and other editors is only one of their pastimes, and they seem to be having a lot of time on their hands right now to vandalise Wikipedia. But many of us keep an eye out for this individual (who is easy enough to spot once you've seen them a few times, and who has been community banned for some time). --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't see any yellow on that page no matter which browser I use, but I don't do NPP so maybe only NPPers see the yellow. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Some old editor trying to be autoconfirmed

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

---

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 --Marvellous Spider-Man 10:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Quick indef please

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

---

While this is probably not a legitimate threat, it still warrants a swift and mighty ban hammer. Please and thank you. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Sam Walton (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Procedural closes?

An IP editor is creating disruption by making a string of requested moves on tropical-storm articles, generally going against established guidelines. The three IPs look like socks of User:N-C16, and I have filed a report at SPI. (All the details are there.)

User:George Ho and I were hoping these twelve requested moves (most have been relisted now) could just be closed because of the socking. — Gorthian (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho and Gorthian: I agree these IPs are socks of N-16. You can either close (or remove if there are no responses) the move discussions yourself, pointing to this thread in the edit summary, or point to a list of these articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Here is the list of hurricane- and storm-related articles at RM. There are so many. I think "procedural close" would do best. --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

All mopped up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What about Talk:Tropical Storm Dorothy (1970) then? There are two supports. The IP is not yet blocked, but most likely a sock. George Ho (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

And Talk:Hurricane Kathleen (1976)? George Ho (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, thank you for your help. George Ho, I think those two will just have to work their way to consensus, since other editors are involved now. — Gorthian (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparent personal attacks & conflict of interest Rod Culleton

Faroutyouaregood1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in what appear to me to be personal attacks, in relation to The Drover's Wife on Talk:Rod Culleton in this post, this post and on User talk:The Drover's Wife in this post. What appears to be a further personal attack was made in relation to User:Wikiain in this post.

The personal attacks, emotive language used in the main article edits that were reverted, 1 2 3 4 5 6, the original research in this comment, and the threat to create a sockpuppet in this comment all suggest that User:Faroutyouaregood1 may have a conflict of interest in relation to the subject of the article Rod Culleton. Find bruce (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The last four sprays on Talk:Rod_Culleton were after my polite request to read WP:NPA on his/her talk page. Perhaps I was too subtle as I didn't have much time. -- ^Talk 07:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've protected the page and issued a final warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Scott Davis I thought your polite request was an appropriate way to put it for a new editor & I made a similar comment on Talk:Rod Culleton. It is only when behaviour continues that the comments need to be more direct. While the initial response was sub-optimal, the warning issued by Beeblebrox has elicited an appropriately contrite response on User talk:Faroutyouaregood1. Coupled with the couple of days protection to allow emotions to cool will hopefully be the end of it. -- Find bruce (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please block for copyvio / promo editing

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

---

Dougernst has repeatedly added copyvio text, which is promotional as it comes from the subject's website, to Napa Valley College. They have continued despite several warnings, reverts and revision deletions. However I feel a little too involved to block, so could someone else please? BethNaught (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Claiming you are too involved to block someone but asking someone else to block them is really no different. Now in this case it certainly seems like a good block, but I trust that NeilN did not block solely on BethNaught's (involved) recommendation but checked the circumstances for himself and deemed the block appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That is completely untrue. The blocking admin always takes full responsibility, and would never block unless they had closely and objectively reviewed the situation. Admins come to noticeboards all the time with issues they may be too involved to use the tools on. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: 1) Yes, I checked. 2) No, there's a significant difference between claiming you are too involved to block someone and asking someone else to block them. Admins are still content editors and can still ask other admins to perform admin actions they can't perform themselves because of WP:INVOLVED (e.g., at RFPP or ANEW). 3) Most importantly, I do not believe WP:INVOLVED applied to BethNaught in this case at all. She could have made the block and I would have fully supported it as appropriate. This type of copyright infringement is a straightforward case and giving warnings and removing the infringements does not make an admin involved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have trust in your and BethNaught's admin actions. To me it just looked weird for an admin to request a block because they were involved. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I do it sometimes if I see edit warring on an article I've non-trivially edited in the past. "I'm not blocking per INVOLVED" gets added to the ANEW report to stave off "why the heck aren't you handling this yourself" questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I've seen a number of editors asking admins to block a specific editor, both here and on admin talk pages, with immediate, positive results. I've done it myself, though I'm not going to dig up the diff to refresh my memory of who and why. The only difference here is that we can extend a little extra trust that an admin has the experience to have made a good call on whether the other editor should be blocked. But as Softlavender said, the admin who does it takes responsibility, just as if the request came from a normal editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If an administrator has even a slight belief that he or she might be seen as involved in a situation where using admin tools would possibly be seen as inappropriate, coming to ANI and asking for another uninvolved administrator to review the situation and take appropriate action is not only the expected thing to do, it's the right thing to do. BethNaught's decision to err on the side of caution and ask for another administrator to review the situation was both logical and the responsible thing to do. Level-headed and intelligent administrators who care about the responsibility and the community trust that comes with having the tools and using them in the manner that is expected and in a completely neutral viewpoint would do exactly what BethNaught did, and she should be barnstar'd and applauded for doing so. This is exactly what to look for in good administrators. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

81.96.151.42

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

---

• Tablespoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 81.96.151.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Edit warring, removal of properly sourced material. Request a brief block.

Reverts: [81] [82] [83]

Warned on talk page here: [84]. The last revert came after this warning.

Attempt to discuss on article talk page, with ping to this user: Talk:Tablespoon#Serving or eating?

Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The correct venue for this report is WP:ANEW. With a newish IP user who is only engaged in edit-warring despite warning, the technicalities of 3RR are overlooked and a slo-mo edit war is treated as a violation. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Pinging Kendall-K1 in case they are not watching this page. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Claims of impersonation

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

---

Suggestions have been made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc that new account Srednaus Lenoroc might be impersonating Srednuas Lenoroc (note the subtle spelling differences between those three accounts). This claim is based on the fact that Lrednuas Senoroc was previously blocked for impersonating the same editor. Personally, I think that Srednuas Lenoroc has simply created a new account and is now editing as Srednaus Lenoroc, but attempts to establish whether this is the case (e.g. at User talk:Srednaus Lenoroc#New account and Wikipedia:Teahouse#Sock Puppetry -- Do the accusations never end?) are not getting very far. I am bringing the matter here to see if we can get to the bottom of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Could be a joe job. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The SPI case regarding Srednaus Lenoroc was submitted by @Sir Sputnik: and again, I have said that if Srednaus Lenoroc is new account of Srednuas Lenoroc, then he has nothing to to do with that  SPI case. And also, @McGeddon: recommended that if he is Srednuas Lenoroc himself and created a new account because of a forgotten password or something, then it should be flagged on both of their user pages [85] and that's all. However, he didn't admit that he is Srednuas Lenoroc, despite he knows that it will help him. On the contrary, he claims that all those similarities (user names, editing styles, etc.)  are just a "coincidence" and blamed other editors for being "conspirational" and involved in personel attacks many times. I think the reason is simple: Because he is not Srednuas Lenoroc, but a separate editor impersonating him-most probably the same sockmaster, Lrednuas Senoroc, aiming to create a mess to undermine the SPI cases about him. Please note that, the editor commented on 7 times on 9 January 2017 case with an inexplicable attempts to acquite the ip socks and suspected sock accounts of Lrednuas Senoroc, whereas he just made 5 comments on 16 February 2017 case, the case which is openly about his own account. It is just weird. 46.221.164.49 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the new user account is being used mainly to fix hundreds of grammar and spelling errors.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Posting in the wrong section could be down to competence problems. Note that Srednaus Lenoroc has also posted comments on userpages, such as here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that he has been editing Wikipedia for almost 2 years and still does not know where to post. His edit summaries, by contrast, do not seem such amateurish. I think a CU may solve this problem.Anyway, admins will decide. 46.221.172.216 (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

From their edit histories, this user spends almost all of their time here searching for one particular typo or basic grammar mistake and then rote-replacing it with a (usually) correct alternative in dozens of the search results. They do not seem particularly interested in how the rest of Wikipedia operates. --McGeddon (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So are you telling me you did not do any due diligence and look at the history of the original account?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The situation involving the different user names has already been explained and discounted as infiltration by the sock puppet. It is not within my ability to change a mind that is unable to understand that. As for competency when it comes to the idiocycracies of WP it needs to be understood by those that are far more cognizant of WP that there are in this world those people that may be involved with WP that are not so invested in the system as to learn all those idiosyncacies. So now I imagine that within the purview of WP I am being disruptive. That is the fault of how WP functions. Again, I am unable to change the minds of those that are unable too. As for where that explanation is, that I am unable yo provide because I do not remember how to get there. Again, you need to realize that those people who are involved with WP may not be so invested in WP to understand ALL of its idiosyncracies. But if people are willing to so easy levy accussations then they should be so easily capable of reading the record. That seems only fair.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't been explained with clarity, Srednaus Lenoroc. With this edit, you suggested that you set up a new account, but here you suggest that it is a coincidence that your account name and editing behaviour is so similiar to Srednuas Lenoroc. So, to help clear this up, could you clarify whether you were previously editing as Srednuas Lenoroc and are now editing with a new account? Yes or no will suffice. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk) You go so easily from the "WE" to the "I" in explaining your suspicions. The correct grammar would be "these users'"Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

talk How is it that you are able to get a contributions list for "L" when there is very little listed and what is there has bnothing to do with repetative editing--only Turkish.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I explain in clear detail as to what happened and then get accussed of being infiltrated by the "L" original user? Give me a break. If you want to accuss someone of something then read the record before you do so. If you have not then that is your fault.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I found this discussion after discovering an editing campaign by the new S.L. In the week or so since the account was created, the user has introduced nonsensical phrases across many articles, apparently stemming from a lack of English fluency, and leaving the edit summary "grammar" (contributions link). This user is generating a lot of clean-up work for others. Eric ^talk 13:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I do not expect this situation to end well because it will be decided that I have been disruptive and uncooperative and challenging WP's authority. But I just read through your links as to my explanation and you are wrong. These are not my explanation. I cannot tell you where it is because you have to realize that in this world there are people that are not as invested in WP as are you and others and do not get into all the idiocycries of the functioning of that group. Again, I can see this not ending happily as I will at least be seen as challenging WP's authority. I cannot tell where it is that I explained but I did and as it has been pointed out that I seem to be unfamiliar with how to put where what needs to be put you will need to look further; but I know it is there because I distinctly remember that the explanation in all its detail was discounted as being written by the user that is banned from WP and my system having been infiltrated. Everyone can go to the depths of the ocean in explaining consistencies but the fact remains that an explanation has been given, was discounted by your lower authorities and now we are at a forum that is to decide a question that has already been decided by people that decided that my explanation was fictional? Again, I do not see a happy ending here because it will be viewed that my actions have challenge the authority of WP and the integrity of all those who decided to weigh-in on this situation and create something out of nothing. Predict that I am wrong? If I cannot tell you the exact place then maybe you should contact those that did comment on this situation did they discount my explanation? Then Voila. But that person may not want to become known as the person that caused a bother for everyone else when it could have been settled long ago. But I can see that the examples used clearly are critical of WP and those that are involved. But the fact of the matter will remain that a lot of people went out on a limp at their own expense. Again, I do not see this experience ending happily because some people have fooled themselves. I am not responsible for that. I did not compel any one to do what they did. Again, I do not expect a happy ending here because WP is unable to critique itself. From what I understand there is the Miranda Decision in the US. Why? Because the police were unable to critique themselves in the handling of people that become involved in alleged crimes. When you have an organization whose upper echelon is filled with people that have been selected by others of a similar mind set it does not take long for their to be a mentality similar to a carouse--going round and round and getting no where. The person who will make a judgement on this will be someone that has been vetted by WP that like so many others is highly invested in retaining the integrity of WP and does not like to be challenged by the rank and file. I do not expect for you to accept this because you are part of the system. Your authority is invested in this system. A challenge to a closed organization is not appreciated. It is very easy to label someone as disruptive and uncooperative. All it takes is one person of authority to do so to even cause there to be a suspicion.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you cannot find your explanation and that I have apparently been unable to find it, could you just answer the question again here: did you previously edit using the account Srednuas Lenoroc - in other words, are these contributions yours? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I note they ae not answering the same question at SPI either. Not answering a simple question in two forums, then. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I am very close to blocking them for disruption based on the reply above and on SPI. I'm getting the feeling we are being played here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Seconded, after following this this thread. Clear case of obfuscation. Lectonar (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So is everyone telling that they have not bothered due diligence and look at the contributions list for when these accounts were active? Because that seems rather foolish? Especially after my original explanation that was discounted.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I've looked - I even supplied a link above (where my unanswered question for you is). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone want to apologize now or after the second explanation?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Will you answer the question posed to you? Simple yes or no, is this other account yours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And by that we mean is Srednuas Lenoroc a previous account of yours? I think everyone now accepts that Lrednuas Senoroc is nothing to do with you so nothing to do with the SPI. The question is have you had a previous Wikipedia account that for some reason you abandoned last year and then created this account recently? Nthep (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Which question so that I know about what it is that you are talking about. It seems like there have been a few people acting foolish here since it is so easy to cast aspirsions on people then leave it to others to clean up. That is a problem with a shark attack mentality. Again, I do not see this situation ending happily because people have been acting like fools.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

One last time: did you previously edit using the account Srednuas Lenoroc - in other words, are these contributions yours? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block for User:Srednaus Lenoroc

• Ultimately due to the fact that it might focus their attention on what the community wants rather than merely what they are willing to give us. This situation is absolutely ridiculous. They are refusing to answer one simple question, and that should tell everything we need to know. Either they are a sock, and are trying to fillibuster us, or they are not, and we have been trolled for the last day or two. Two massive- and massively convoluted- threads, here and at SPI- have not yet received astraight answer, and indeed it is purely due to this editor that they are so convoluted. Instead of the requested yes / no answer, we get walls of text and evasiveness. End this farce now please, and we can get back to what we are meant to be doing. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support block if SL refuses to answer this very simple question. Their behaviour demonstrates an inability to work collaboratively, which is a required skill. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked. The evasive argumentative tone whilst avoiding the simple question points me strongly towards the conclusion that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Until they provide a straight answer to the question they have been asked, I think a block is now appropriate or these discussions are going to continue for ever. One we or another, we seem to be being trolled. WJBscribe (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Should the Srednuas Lenoroc account also be blocked? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yep, I've blocked that one too. WJBscribe (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I support block for Srednaus Lenoroc but I don't think user Srednuas Lenoroc should also be blocked. 'Cause we still don't know whether these two editors are the same or one editor is just trolling on WP by impersonating the other editor. I think, we are simply being trolled, since it is absurd not to answer a simple question and creating such a mess. 46.221.178.57 (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The interaction analyser suggests it is phenomonally unlikely that they are different editors :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure. Both were just randomly editing multiple articles and it is not a surprise that some articles they edited were overlapped. I mean, this alone doesn't prove that they are the same editors. 46.221.178.57 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Block reduced to 48 hours. As the user has now confirmed the previous editing as Srednuas Lenoroc (talk · contribs) and given a plausible explanation for the change (although not their 6 day delay in giving the answer), I have reduced the block from indef to 48 hours, which I think is the appropriate length to reflect the recent disruptive editing. Should problematic editing continue after the block expires, we may need to consider reinstating the indefblock. WJBscribe (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is no one remotely concerned that 46.221.178.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just appeared out of nowhere and started supporting a user in a sockpuppet case? Like is that just me? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The IP wasn't supporting anyone accused of sockpuppetry, but I have indeed been wondering where they appeared from. It seems to be a dynamic IP, so it's hard to track how long they've been editing for. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Bizarrely, here that P is arguing that it may just be a coincidence that the two SL accounts edited similiar articles, so they needn't be socking; whilst over on Srednuas Lenoroc's page they are arging that they are most probably socking. Any reason for that we can think of? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems that you misunderstood. I was pointing that, the user is just trolling through impersonating other editors on WP. As for talk page response, I was talking about his inconsistent answers. Actually all in these edits, i was pointing that the user might be a seperate editor trolling on WP. 46.221.174.114 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

H'mmm... OK. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The 46.221.* IP user raised an SPI against impersonator Lrednuas Senoroc last December, and has drifted into commenting on Srednaus, I think with some concern that Srednaus may have also been this impersonator, although it's awkward to check with the dynamic IP. How about getting a username, 46.221? --McGeddon (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr @McGeddon:, I'll reply you on your talk page, since it is a bit off-topic. And it would nice, if an admin close this section. 'Cause I am almost tired of checking the revision history of that page. The user really created a mess in both of the project pages. 46.221.174.114 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Train wreck

Dear editors: Because I was busy in real life today and had only the occasional moment to read the Wikipedia talk pages, without any time to research and write posts, I had to stand by and watch a prolific and hard-working Wikignome hounded into retirement. Today I had more time, so after severeal hours of investigation, here is my Wikipedia:Assume good faith analysis of what happened:

In May 2015, a new user, Srednuas Lenoroc, set his computer to keep him logged in and remember his password, and between then and July 2016 proceeded to make more than 20,000 mostly small fixes of typos and MOS changes. In November 2015, another account, Lrednuas Senoroc, was created by a user with a totally different editing pattern who apparently picked an existing user name one at random and changing a couple of letters (User talk:Srednuas Lenoroc#re: User:Lrednuas Senoroc) The new user was advised to change user names, and after two days that account was blocked. Problem over, apparently.

On February 9, 2017, after not editing for eight months, Srednuas Lenoroc got a new computer which didn't have his account information. Unable to remember his password, he logged in using the "make an account" process, thinking that he had used the same username (see his comment here), "I put in the user name I previously used and WP accepted it" and not realizing that that only worked because he had transposed two letters. As Srednaus Lenoroc, he began his pattern of improving the encyclopedia by making more than 1500 improvements over the next few days, stopping occasionally to ask for help at the Teahouse. But things began to go wrong!

First, an editor accused him of using a bot without permission. He replied that he was just using the search engine to find misspellings and fix them. (I spent an hour or so this morning doing the same thing and had no trouble replicating the editing pattern.) Then he tried to point out a problem with an article (Talk:AltX#Recommend deletion), and took offense at the patronizing reply of one editor. He added a link to that editor's talk page to his own, but was told in no uncertain terms to keep away (from a page he had never edited) and called a troll (User talk:Srednaus Lenoroc# Friends). After another editor reminded him that these links created annoying "pings", he stopped adding the links.

Next, he was notified that he'd been mentioned in a sock puppet investigation. He was asked why he made a new account, but didn't respond at that time. The question would be confusing to one who didn't realize he had changed his username.

He just kept on fixing typos and date-related grammar. But next he was notified of an WP:ANI discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Claims of impersonation) suggesting that he was impersonating another user. He tried to explain that all of that impersonation business was investigated and his involvement discounted in 2015, but was unable to get his point across. His posting clearly shows that he thought the editors were asking about the 2015 impersonator, Lrednuas Senoroc.

Then, after hundred of other good edits, he made a series of edits changing "close up" to "forward" in some military articles. When Eric asked him to stop, guess what? He did, immediately, and started discussing it on his talk page. Eric reported him at ANI anyway, in a post the made it seem that most of his edits are bad (not true; aside from the "forward" issue, I have looked at a couple of hundred and found three errors).

At this point Srednaus Lenoroc was becoming agitated and began to make rambling and somewhat sarcastic postings on various talk pages, including the Teahouse which had helped him before, complaining that none of this made any sense. He confirmed in this posting that he did make a new account because he couldn't access his old one, but still either didn't seem to realize that his user name has changed slightly or didn't understand why anyone cares. He continued to assert (for example HERE) that he is not Lrednuas Senoroc, and expressed bafflement as to why he was continually accused of abusing multiple accounts (understandably, since neither his previous account nor the other short-lived account have been active for more than eight months).

The next day, Srednaus Lenoroc was blocked indefinitely. His crimes are, as far as I can see, (1) adding a couple of links to user talk pages to his own and not wanting to remove them, (2) making grammar errors in maybe 2% of his edits, (3) not responding right away when accused of various things he didn't do, and (4) complaining, at ANI (the talk page set aside for such complaints}, at the Teahouse which is supposed to help people (his posts were removed), and at the sockpuppet investigation (to which he was called), that he was being hounded and treated unfairly (this is apparently disruptive).

Srednaus Lenoroc has marked himself as "retired" on his talk page. He left a posting comparing Wikipedia to a shark tank. The incident seems to me more like bear-baiting, and so Wikipedia has lost a prolific if somewhat fractious Wikignome. I can tell you, if any of this had happened to me, I would not be editing today.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That, indeed, is a disconcerting story. But it does looks like the block was reduced to 48 hours (per talkpage, question has been answered so reducing block to one [?] for disruptive editing only). As an afterthought, Anne Delong's comment is a a bit heavy on text (which I did read!), but light on evidence (especially "crimes" 1-4 paragraph). We can't really be expected to go hunting for the diffs; the onus is on her to provide these for us here. But again, it is too bad the editor retired. Hopefully, he will reconsider. El_C 17:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was running out of time near the end and had to leave for a music event and have just returned. I neglected to provide a link to the user's talk page where some of the discussion can be found, although I did provide a link to the user himself, and clicking on the word "talk" isn't that much of a hunt. Everything else is either in the diffs and links I provided further up in this section, except that I forgot to link to the Teahouse: this diff shows a highly agitated editor lashing out in frustration after the Teahouse hosts (doing their best to explain in their usual friendly fashion) direct him back to the talk pages where he feels he has been attacked.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I realize he's agitated and that it wasn't his fault, but in fairness, he didn't do a lot to clear the confusion there. In fairness, I don't know what I would think reading it, if I didn't have the context. El_C 00:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's one wall of text that's worth reading! If accurate, it should be a case study in driving off good editors. Unfortunately there's no email this user link for this user, but perhaps a carefully crafted talk page message could do the trick? EEng 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Anne Delong and all- Sorry if I contributed to an erroneous block action. I admit that I tend take a less than charitable view when I (all too often) run across someone with English challenges making obsessive mass changes across many en.wp articles with unhelpful or empty edit summaries. A quick glance at SL's interactions with other editors seemed to confirm for me that this was a contentious user, one who takes up a lot of people's time seeking strife and drama on Wikipedia. It could be that I didn't research the issue enough to draw that conclusion and warrant adding my comments--I don't know. Anne, I would like to point out that I did not initiate the ANI report; when I found it, I merely added my observations regarding the "closed up"/"forwarded" campaign. Eric ^talk 21:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Is User talk:Srednaus Lenoroc the correct place to send an encouraging message to this user? Contentious or not, the gnomes do so much great work here. They often fix things you overlook when writing content, because once you've read an article 50 times, you start to forget what it says and overlook typys. Typo intentional. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'll leave a message too. EEng 23:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86

The following discussion is closed. 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 IP s making highly controversial edit in the category system, and is edit warring about it. Obviously a sock. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User has admitted to being ChronoFrog,[86] a SPA with an agenda to push. I think the user is NOTHERE and should be blocked for the socking, editwarring and for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And I didn't like this edit, which sounded a bit like a threat.[87] Debresser (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Or this one: [88] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, given what I've seen you both do, you are in no position to call anyone an SPA or accuse them of POV. Further, if you look at my edit history, I've worked on more than just Jewish articles. The first edits I made here were on a TV series. Nowhere does it say that I'm required to log in every time I edit, especially if I'm not even using that account anymore.

"And I didn't like this edit, which sounded a bit like a threat." It isn't a threat. Several articles are being written about this as we speak. Have fun. And yes, you will both be outed publicly.2601:84:4502:61EA:E492:DB5F:B7AA:EB86 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that a THREAT of OUTING? Can we please get some admin action quickly, I don't need to have to be threatened and bullied on here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Already range blocked by Bbb23. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This thread is obviously evidence of a conspiracy, though I can't be arsed to find out if it's a Zionist, anti-Zionist, left-wing, vast right-wing, or moderately militant conspiracy. Sir Joseph THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT YOU CANT SILENCE US and all that blah blah. Thanks to all, and let us admins know if we need to semi-protect this or that. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I need to wait for the "Sir Joseph is an anti-semite" article to hit the newswires. Should be an interesting read. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh so y'all were running an anti-Zionist conspiracy. Good to know--I keep note cards on my desk to keep track of who's doing what. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, that's what we are doing this week? I swear I can't keep up! RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No, let's keep things simple. This has nothing to do with Zionism. It's just me being an anti-Semite. We should be glad this is one area where the IP conflict hasn't reared it's ugly head. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you admit being an antisemite, I suggest an indefinite topic ban from all pages related to professional competitors in 4th to 5th century BCE Greek drinking games, broadly construed. We just can't trust such horrible bigots to edit those articles objectively. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, I was just thinking... What if Trump liked to edit Wikipedia instead of tweeting? EEng 18:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIR TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

We're gonna make some tremendous improvements. We're gonna flush the swamp, kick out the Washington Post and get some real sources in here, like Breitbart News and Infowars. We're gonna make yuge changes to policy, and when we're done, we're gonna build a wall of text so high no new editors will ever join, believe me. And while we're at it, we're gonna indef block Jimbo. And Jimbo's gonna pay for it, trust me. I have the best paid editors, the very best. We're gonna do great things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

My attention was brought to this article, in which I am called, apparently, both an ultra-right wing Israeli “settler” (with link), as well as anti-semitic. I do see the irony of the case. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Given Trump's level of understanding of Middle East affairs, as displayed during Netanyahu's visit, that might be him editing after all. EEng 19:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ban evasion

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

---

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hidden Tempo

This was opened yesterday, but the implications are clear:

The Patriot Way (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account created by Hidden Tempo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to evade his topic ban. The person behind these accounts has admitted to as much on the SPI [89].

jps (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Aww geez, I guess I should kick this to WP:AE? Sorry if so. WP:BURO got me down. jps (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Long-term Edit warring on List of Resident Evil characters

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

---

• 31.7.108.250 (talk · contribs)
• 2.180.175.153 (talk · contribs)

I have noticed that two IP edits have been involved in a long-term edit war on List of Resident Evil characters. Please note that I have issued a warnings to these IPs in the past, but they keep changing.[90][91] There seems to be a dispute over the placement and organization of certain video game characters in this article. I first noticed this in February 2015. I initially warned both editors in December 2016 and invited them to a discussion on the article's talk page. Neither party replied nor heeded my warning to stop. I was able to request protection to stop the disruptive editing, but the edit warring resumed once the protection expired.

Some of the IPS involved in this edit war:

• 31.7.108.255 (talk · contribs)
• ‎2.180.44.63 (talk · contribs)
• 31.59.147.169 (talk · contribs)
• 31.59.147.111 (talk · contribs)
• 31.59.146.187 (talk · contribs)
• 31.59.151.209 (talk · contribs)
• 2.180.165.155 (talk · contribs)
• 2.180.41.171 (talk · contribs)
• 2.180.43.177 (talk · contribs)
• 46.100.129.93 (talk · contribs)
• 80.246.239.243 (talk · contribs)

There's a methodical and distinct method for how these anons are undoing each others. Does anyone have suggestions to help resolve this problem? Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@StarScream1007: A rangeblock is probably in order. Is there an admin available who knows a thing or two about IP addresses (not me, sadly) who can make an appropriate call about a range of IP addresses to block in this case? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If the only article being targeted is List of Resident Evil characters, it is simpler just to semiprotect that, which I have now done. The IPs are too scattered for range blocking to be a simple matter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal 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.

---

Received legal threat and was called a "shmuck" by someone who didn't like me adding sourced material to his Wikipedia article. Makeandtoss (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Makeandtoss (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Oshwah per WP:NLT --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

archive.is refspamming

For previous see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC.

172.94.3.46 [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97] etc.

An IP has linkspamming archive.is into Greene's Tutorial College. All links in the references had been replaced. Live links are being replaced as well as dead ones. Examples of live links that were replaced include [98], [99], [100], [101]. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should revisit the idea of a blacklist, because it doesn't seem like this has ever gone away. --Tarage (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

MarekValenti

User:MarekValenti has recently made edits to Talk:Neutral country and Talk:Battle of Singapore that appear to be similar to banned user User:HarveyCarter. In the case of the Battle of Singapore they appear to be purely provocative, as he states that Japan ended European colonialism and that Britain had abandoned colonialism in 1941. My apologies if this is the wrong forum.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This link MarekValenti (talk · contribs) will make it a little easier to check on this. MarnetteD|Talk 04:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely looks like Harvey. Writing style is similar too. 2600:1017:B020:6C63:E94A:120F:7491:7663 (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps opening an WP:SPI would be a better place for this? See here for the sockpuppet page. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

IanB2 and Vikings (TV series)

• IanB2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vikings (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A discussion began at Talk:Vikings (TV series) § links from the cast list section by IanB2 on the validity of linking character from the television series Vikings to the historical figures that the characters are inspired by. After a discussion of intermediate length and an initial edit[102], later reverted[103], I gave a suggestion as to the linking, and that was to link to the historical figures, but for characters with entries only at List of Vikings characters, to not link them. IanB2 then took this discussion the wrong way, and did link the figures to the article of the historical figures, but specifically to the subsections of "Portrayals in fiction", or similar titles: the edit[104], and then a revert[105] by Sandstein, of which IanB2 reverted[106] again. This was disagreed upon in the discussion by multiple editors, but the editor has forced this version multiple times, claiming STATUSQUO, while the status quo is the version without the "Portrayals in fiction" links, which had stood for many years, with no other editor supporting their edits, and no consensus whatsoever. I removed the links earlier this month[107], over a month after the discussion, which IanB2 reverted[108]. I then reverted again in good faith[109], which is when IanB2 reverted[110] with no explanation or edit summary. When taken to their talk page after they reverted my removal with no reason, they gave no indication that they wished to contribute to a fair discussion while leaving the proper status quo in place. I attempted to remove them again today[111], with the flow of no consensus for the links to the subsections, but I was reverted[112] thrice- this[113] is where IanB2 claimed STATUSQUO incorrectly; I have since ceased to revert to prevent edit-warring. These actions well and truly fall under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, specifically the fourth point as described below, and also the second point: An unrelated editor added[114] link to another historical figure, which IanB2 accused[115] me of adding "uncited links" in their revert of my edits, while not even removing the link. They then even restored[116] the link after I removed[117] it (noted that they later removed[118] it after it was brought to their attention). However, these actions definitely comply with the fourth point of OWNBEHAVIOR. If the editor wishes to take part in this discussion, they would do well to note that this is a discussion about their actions, not the content. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am disappointed with both the tone and the content of the above. This issue arose originally from a point that I raised on the talk page of the relevant article, on 31 December. Arising from this discussion, Alex proposed a solution ("links can be directed to the reference to the television series in the historical figure's article - e.g., link "Ragnar Lothbrok" to Ragnar Lodbrok#In popular culture") which I implemented as he proposed. Alex subsequently changed his mind and has several times (twice on 2 February, three times this morning) returned to the page to revert the change, without providing any explanation as to why his own proposal should be reversed. Alex made these five deletions/reverts without contributing further to the talk page on the relevant article - until this morning the last contribution was mine of 3 January in which I say I am happy to discuss further. The appropriate way for Alex to have proceded was to have responded to my invitation and set out whatever are the concerns he may now have with his own earlier suggestion, not to repeatedly edit the page without offering any justification, and then bring the matter here. I feel that the WP:OWN allegation is inappropriate, since the proposal at issue was his own suggestion to begin with, and his recent emotional behaviour in the discussion on the television manual of style (culminating in his edits of 3 February, and multiple complaints from other editors about Alex's disruptive approach) indicate that this is a policy he might usefully himself review. Finally I note that Alex's three edits of the page today each revert my original change of 31 December, and I have returned the page to status quo each time, so for disclosure we would both appear to be in breach of 3RR IanB2 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And as I have mentioned time and time again, I revoked my stance on the decision, and found it to not be applicable to the article. I have provided plenty of explanation, which you seem to ignore, and that is that you have no consensus or supported for your edits. No other editor has agreed with the edits since you implemented them. I contributed to the discussion on your talk page, which you made it extremely clear that you did not plan to make any attempt at a civilized and fair discussion, and hence I left it. I brought the matter here due to the fact that I was concerned with your severe breaches of OWNBEHAVIOR, which are not just allegations, given that proof was provided in my original post. I would recommend that you begin immediate action to rectify what has been listed. I am not some angsty teenage that allows particular discussions to affect my contributions to other ones - I reverted my disruptive edits regarding the MoS changes, and withdrew from it. This does not affect my ability to discuss the issues regarding the cast list, and that you would assume it does shows that you think very little, if at all, of other editors on this site. I would also recommend that you actually read up on 3RR - your statements are false. This is not the status quo. The status quo is the version without the links, that the page stood with for multiple years, and the disruptive edits are the ones that were reverted by two editors, not just myself. For a version to be a status quo is, after all, a version that does not contain the edits being disputed. The edits being disputed? Those are the section links. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Since no other editor has contributed to the discussion, or amended the edit to the article, for some weeks, Alex's references to "consensus" don't actually amount to any more than himself disagreeing with his earlier proposal that resolved the original disagreement. He has offered no explanation in relation to the substantive issue to explain his change of view or support his multiple reversions, for which the proper place is the article talk page. I have made no comment on Alex's maturity or judgement, but believe my positive attempt to resolve the dispute he created (by his own admission) within the MOSTV review speaks for itself (and may well be why Alex has chosen to escalate a relatively trivial disagreement to this administrators' page). Alex's three edits to the Vikings series page this morning each reverse my edit of 31 December, which in my view falls foul of 3RR, but I am happy to be guided by more experienced editors if I have misread this policy. IanB2 (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The consensus, or the status quo, is the status of the article before the introduction of the disputed content. This disputed content is that of the linked sections, to which I am not the only editor that disagreed with it. This makes your claim of "Since no other editor has contributed to the discussion" incorrect; you seem to have forgotten Sandstein's contributions. The linking is not necessary, as when a reader visits the page for the historical figure, they expect to be sent to the information regarding the historical figure. They do not expect to be presented with information that is identical to that already provided in the series' article, regarding the figure's portrayal in fiction, of which no unique information is given in this particular section of the historical figure's article (differences from the actual figure, casting information, development, etc). But as I mentioned in the initial post, this discussion is to report your actions, and not a place to continue the discussion here. This report and matter is not trivial at all, as you have expressed not one but two major points of attempting to own the article. You need to recognize your actions, and begin to work on them. Since you are apparently not planning to read 3RR yourself, I will copy it for you: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. The three edits to the Vikings article do not violate 3RR at all. You have misread it, and a more experienced editor has indeed corrected you.

I don't think this is helpful, Alex. There is no "serious misconduct" here - even your own transgressions, which are more numerous than mine, don't fall into this category. It is quite obvious that you are posting here to pursue a perceived grievance arising from an unrelated discussion. I am pleased that you have raised a wider discussion on the issue of the links, rather than repeatedly reverting content that you don't like (despite being in the format that you yourself originally proposed). Meanwhile the mature thing to do would be to remove this discussion from the administrators' page to avoid wasting their time unnecessarily. Regarding 3RR, I stand by my view that your three edits within a few hours each reverted my original of 31 December, and therefore you were in breach. I haven't posted a report to avoid escalating this dispute unduly. Nevertheless as you are someone who has been blocked for falling foul of 3RR previously, I suggest that a refresh might be worthwhile. IanB2 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

By all means, list my transgressions, if you think that there are more than those that you have committed. I'm not afraid of WP:BOOMERANG; I am more than willing to confront them, unlike yourself. I am posting here to bring your actions to account. You fail to understand your actions. I have no plans whatsoever to remove this discussion, especially given that other editors have contributed to it, so attempting to hide a report against your actions will not work. And I stand by the view that it appears that you believe that "exactly three" means "more than three"; I ceased to revert after the third, to prevent that very case. No violation has occurred. Shall I copy the policy gain, or would you read it from my previous message? Bringing up old cases won't support your arguments either. As you can tell, I have not violated 3RR since those particular occurrences. You don't see me bringing up any old reports against you; I find these actions to be in foul taste and exceptionally uncivil of you. Again, a display of not attempting to discuss in a fair and civil manner. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

unless you insist, I don't think listing your transgressions would take this discussion (which really doesn't belong here in the first place) in a positive direction. I don't see that above conversation does either of us any favours. I was pleased when you decided to change approach and pursue the issue of the links in a positive and collaborative manner, and would rather build on that rather than be dragged back into another pointless dispute with you. IanB2 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So, there are none to list As I thought. I would prefer to remove the links rather the "build on" the links, hence my RfC. I will be leaving this discussion for the administrators to review, and decide what the best cause of action is for the deeds listing in the original post are. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not hold a request for comments? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Submitted one. What are your thoughts on this report and user in question? Alex|The|Whovian^? 19:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, my hope is that the RFC will help resolve whatever problems exist here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Bobsanders1991 compromised?

Bobsanders1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Appears to be a genuine contributor but an abrupt change of article topic is seen in two incidents of apparent vandalism at Visigoths (egregious and questionable). Wanted to bring this up before any more damage occurs. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it looks very odd for someone who has been editing for a year would suddenly start introducing deliberate errors. I've blocked them, we'll see what reaction that draws. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a CU could take a look to see if the technical data could indicate that the account was compromised? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not for fishing and would not necessarily be of any help. In many cases of of WP:COMPROMISED the account wasn't hacked, the user in question was just careless and left their account logged in on a shared machine, allowing a malicious this party to abuse their account. Unless another user knows them personally, there is no way to verify that they are back in control of the account. So unless they decide to own those edits and admit to vandalizing, this account is probably a done deal and they will need to start a new one. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of alternate accounts, if you check Th3Rea$on, you can see Wikipediaupload (talk · contribs) recreated it several hours after Bobsanders1991 created it. Wikiupload1991 (talk · contribs) also looks related; all three accounts have edited Anna Faith. Seems a bit fishy to me. Maybe this isn't such an innocent contributor? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's not good. Pretty clear socking, rotating the accounts to edit the same article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

He is now claiming his account was hacked/compromised, but so far has not addresssed the apparent socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I just blocked another Bobsanders1991 sock, Sabrebonds9119 (talk · contribs). This one repeated Bobsanders1991's last edit to Anna Faith. It looks like we'll be playing Whac-A-Mole. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

And apparently he's now saying it was all just for "fun". I don't see what is so fun about using two accounts to edit the same article, but maybe I'm missing something. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have gone full-on bad faith troll, just like that. That and the pre-made socks does suggest this was not their first account but with so many nameless trolls out there we'll probably never know which one this was. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User replacing images with his own lower-quality ones

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

---

• Hemant banswal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Hemant banswal is an amateur photographer keen on introducing his own work into articles. A few are useful angles on local architecture which Wikipedia was lacking, but a lot of his edits are adding redundant photos that don't particularly illustrate anything and replacing useful and/or high-quality images with unclear, lower-resolution ones from his own camera. User:Pocketthis mentioned "a number of us chasing this guy" for this behaviour back in January; after I took the time to offer Hemant some talk page advice, and to patiently deal out warnings up to level-4 when reverting his edits, he's still replacing photos with his own less-illustrative ones and has not attempted to discuss these edits with anyone. Not sure where else to go from here. --McGeddon (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It is my view that an editor who has taken or has found a photo which could improve a article should be bold and just do it (recognizing that a consensus of editors might conclude the article has too many or that this one isn't suitable. However, when it comes to replacing one photo with another one, absent situations where it is clear that the replacement is materially better, the editor should open a discussion on the talk page, ideally to get support, but at a minimum to identify lack of opposition, before replacing the photo.

I don't pretend to have invented this process, it is one I've seen used by editors I respect, but AFAIK, it isn't codified as a guideline {or maybe it has and I just haven't seen it). If it is a sensible rule, we might codify it as a guideline, then we would have a better ability to deal with situations such as thins, and could revert per a guideline, rather than having to create an ANI incident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• What McGeddon failed to mention here is that this user, who claims to speak English on his user page, has NEVER replied to one of us. His talk page looks like a Rand McNally map of problems. Many posts of help offered, much advice offered by many. Replies from the user in question: ZERO. He is either suffering from mental issues, or just doesn't give a damn, and he just continues to run from article to article exchanging high res quality photos with amateur low res cell phone photos with no composition. He is trouble and needs a BOOT. Do what you will, I am personally tired of chasing him around. Respectfully, Pocketthis (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. @Pocketthis: (hello there, I remember your great pictures!). I understand your frustration, but we have seen many cases of users who simply aren't aware they have a talkpage, or what it's for. On the assumption that that's what's the problem here, I have blocked the user for two weeks, simply to get their attention. They have certainly been warned enough, and reached-out-to enough. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

• Oh dear, McGeddon and Pocketthis, I forgot to actually place the block (being used to Twinkle doing it for me), and the user immediately came to my page, to give me a pie and have a chat. Some irony there. I told him to get back to his own page — I gave him a link to it and everything — and chat to the people who have taken so much trouble to reach out to him. Seriously. Now he's blocked. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
• Lol...I got a good laugh at your post. It fixed a simply horrid day...:-) How did he end up on your page?? He finally replied when he was blocked?? I don't get it, but if this is heading toward some resolution with the problem: Bravo. Oh...thanks for the photography compliment, it certainly caught me off guard, as I don't remember speaking with you previously. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• WAIT!! of course! You were the lovely lady that came to my talk page regarding the UFO incident. I still have that on my page in fact. I kept it because it was such a nice gesture for you to make by coming to my page and discussing the images we see in the clouds. Nice to see you again..really.  :-) - Pocketthis (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I merely told him he had been blocked, I forgot to actually block him. (Twinkle does both together.) So he had no problem coming to my page. Which conveniently made me realize I hadn't blocked him... or I might never have noticed. I certainly remember your cloud pictures, Pocketthis. This sky is absolutely insane. Bishonen | talk 09:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

• On the 'downside', he still hasn't addressed any issues on his talk page, and it certainly isn't because he doesn't know where his talk page is. On the 'upside', at least you got a pie out of the deal! →Pocketthis (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Also, to end any speculation re: 'he may not know where his talk page is', I did a little investigating, and discovered that he blanked his Talk Page of 8,000 characters on February 10th, 2015. So much for that notion. Now my bigger concern is: What happens after the 2 week Ban? Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm watching his page, but two weeks is just about the kind of timespan that'll make me forget all about it in the mad rush that is Wikipedia, and the pie will be long gone. Feel free to report to me directly, on my page, @Pocketthis and McGeddon: and others, if you see renewed disruption from this account after the block expires. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

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

User:TheValentineBros probable hoax/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.

---

TheValentineBros (talk · contribs) edits occasionally on film and music articles, with seemingly constructive edits, adding categories and content, including with citations sometimes. However much of what is added appears to be factually incorrect, beyond the point of simple occasional error. A couple of days ago, for the second time (see also 22 January edits), they added the category "song written for a film" to a large number of songs, eg here, none of which were written for films. Today they have added details of films supposedly in production by an animation studio to that studio's page, but none of the cited sources mention the studio's involvement. I have reverted all these edits and left a note on their talk page, but it increasingly looks like an account simply dedicated to adding small amounts of hoax material (their user page also boasts about being banned from YouTube). Past unreverted edits may also need to be reviewed. N-HH talk/edits 12:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

From his (their?) talk page, it looks like TheValentineBros has a history of creating fake articles when bored. One question I have is whether this is a shared account. The user page makes it sound like multiple people, who used to operate a YouTube channel, now operate this Wikipedia account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That could explain why some of the edits in the contribution history seem OK, whereas others are clearly and repeatedly introducing falsehoods. The latter could of course also be due to genuine error, but there's definitely something not right here. Another explanation for the variation is that there is a conscious effort by whoever runs the account to hide "bad" edits among good ones. Or that they wake up on different sides of the bed each day. N-HH talk/edits 18:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is bizarre. This user may have a constructive streak, but it's evident that inserting unsourced information and/or outright vandalism is a hobby of theirs stretching back years. Furthermore, it's evident they've made no effort to heed the numerous warnings issued to them or. They haven't been in contact with another member of the community in years. Based on the fact that their problematic behavior is so subtle it can easily go unnoticed, and the fact that they've flown under the radar for several years without consequence, I don't think "keeping an eye on" this user would be beneficial. This user needs to establish communication and directly address these issues before they can be allowed to resume editing. Blocking indef. Swarm ♠ 07:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Twitternotices is impersonating a journalist

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

---

This users first edits were to the article Anca Verma, an article were we have been struggling to deal with editing by this person's legal firm via multiple socks.

When I asked User:Twitternotices about this they replied they were a journalist in India. When I reached out to the journalist in question via linkedin the journalist stated that they are not editing Wikipedia.

Wondering peoples thoughts on this? And what we should do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

My first reaction would be to indef block until we can figure out what the heck is going on, but we still need to respect innocent until proven guilty. As such, it may be a good idea to ask questions of the user and if they don't respond and/or become disruptive, then we can start taking further measures. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in their contributions that suggests they are impersonating anyone. I assume the evidence was forwarded to you via email or some other means. If so, the correct policy response is at WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE: If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Please follow this policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am just doing my job and fairly editing articles (without any bias). Yesterday I created a new article on Iulia Vantur another Romanian celebrity which is not yet complete. I am new to Wikipedia and I wish to continue here for the good of society. Twitternotices (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@@Twitternotices: Now, when you say I am just doing my job and fairly editing articles, do you mean that your "job" is editing Wikipedia articles? My understanding is that paid editing is allowed, but it needs to be disclosed, and you earlier explicitly denied having a COI in this area. I would tell you what you need to do to prove your good faith, but if you really are editing in good faith it should be obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Have restored this thread from here. User:Euryalus as an involved user you should not be closing it. I am well aware of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE and am happy to share the evidence with other admins by email. I will ask the journalist if I can post his reply here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Mildly, I have no "involvement" in this dispute, and am a little surprised at the aspersion. It is a routine admin function to point out which policies apply to an issue under discussion, and doing so does not make one "involved" in the terms of the policy. That said, I have no objection to this thread being reopened if anyone has anything substantive to add. If you have evidence that would justify a block or other sanction of user:Twitternotices, please do make it available in accordance with en-WP policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Euryalus You have been involved in the dispute regarding the balance of undisclosed paid editing versus outing. You have commented 14 times here and a further 9 here

As I said if any other admin would like evidence I would be happy to provide it by email. Also we are waiting on an answer to User:Hijiri88 question by User:Twitternotices. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Your reading of WP:INVOLVED is incorrect, but this back and forth is unproductive so I'll leave it there. Thanks for the reassurance re Blockevidence, and I'm sure you'll keep it appropriately in mind in pursuing this specific ANI issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• There was an SPI lodged regarding this editor; supposedly, insufficient evidence. But the suggestion still stands; a comparison of their respective edit summaries is interesting. Twitternotices [119], Mainstreamwikipedia [120], Ultimatebeneficiary [121], Authorincharge [122], etc. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. So, if you have had private communications with User:Twitternotices and a journalist that they claimed to be, you should be sending that evidence to Arbcom. Sharing that evidence with an ordinary administrator would be contrary to policy. Checkuser has found the suspected socks to be stale, and there doesn't appear to be any public edits needing oversight. I can understand how any content about the Vermas, positive or negative, might be subject to disputes and disruptive editing. If that's proving to be too much of a burden to patrol, I'd say the solution is to raise the protection level on the article(s). Going the route of blocking editors with less than a dozen edits is like playing whack-a-mole. You don't have hard evidence of sock-puppetry, and the editing history is simply not long enough to establish anything behavior-wise. wbm1058 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violation by new(ish) editor Barney Herdsy

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

---

Barney Herdsy has a particular interest in the Billy Smart's Circus family, and has repeatedly been adding unreferenced (and often trivial) material to associated pages. More importantly, he/she has now been warned three times for blatant cut-and-paste copyright violation (most recently from the Daily Mail - not a reliable source in any case). They have failed to respond in any way to repeated postings on their talk page, but have merely repeated their behaviour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Indef blocked with a note on how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

IPs from Massachussets (possible sockpuppets)

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

---

• 2600:1000:b002:e6c5:c889:9593:a844:7f82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1000:b079:8746:3:ceef:1b81:73ff (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1000:b00f:5225:f07b:adf7:c6a4:732e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1000:b071:ee3b:18ab:b714:134f:946f (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

All geolocate to Medford, MA and appear to be sockpuppets with one purpose only. See [123]. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotected Michael Brandon. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Help reversing page move 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.

---

Patrash Hembrom recently moved, among other pages, Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/3 to Lucash The Hembrom for no reason. Can some admin please fix this? Thanks. A look at this user's contribs may also help. SkyWarrior 21:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably cluelessness. zzuuzz fixed one move, I fixed the other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. SkyWarrior 21:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Robert L. Wagman

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

---

... in this edit summary. FYI. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just considering WP:DOLT, it appears the information that IP was upset about was introduced as an act of vandalism. Still a hell of an overreaction. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed the AFD as delete, IARing as the article was created by an undisclosed paid editing sock farm. Legal threat is now moot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Categories that supposedly do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration

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

---

• Note: There is an RfC about this at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

VegaDark has nominated a swathe of supposedly unencyclopedic categories for deletion at the little-trafficked Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8, all with the rationale "Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration" and some further remarks. Examples: Category:Users who donate blood plasma ("Additionally, this uses the incorrect "users" instead of "Wikipedians""), Category:Wikipedians who are "out to get you" and/or your garage band ("Seems to be some sort of joke category"), Category:Wikipedians interested in fighting unemployment ("Users who are serious about actually collaborating on improving content can create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to unemployment"), and Category:Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back ("I don't know what LHvU is, but it's completely irrelevant"). Apparently users who have these categories on their own pages don't get alerted that the cat is being proposed for deletion, at least Bishzilla wasn't told about the "wish LHvU [a k a User:LessHeard vanU] would come back". Oh, and I now see they're definitely not: VegaDark resented it as "disruptive canvassing" when a user undertook to ping the six members of the category Wikipedians who support a Federal Europe: "We should be polling community consensus, not the consensus of those who already self-selected to be in the category, which is not representative of the community as a whole". VegaDark certainly makes a reasonable point about the self-selection, but on the other hand: is it a group "representative of the community as a whole" that patrols the CfD board? I'm not sure. Maybe I caught it on a bad day, but it looks to me like there's a preponderence of people who're against social interaction between Wikipedians, on principle, and for the deletion of all categories that merely foster that.

I want to lodge a protest in this, more widely read, forum, because I believe social interaction between content writers is good for the project. I resent VegaDarks broad hint that people who have a few more-or-less jokey cats on their userpage are not serious about actually collaborating on improving content ("Users who are serious about actually collaborating on improving content can create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to unemployment"). We are! Drmies put it more eloquently than I can,[124] in the discussion of "Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back": "I would argue that this does, indeed, foster collaboration, if only because it unites us in our yearning for a more innocent past when we all sat down, smoked the herb together, and wrote up a ton of articles. In other words, keep." So does LessHeard vanU himself, who, now that he's able to say exactly what he thinks, expresses himself fruitily, and also points out that "People who live in the real world understand that shared foolishness fosters feelings of companionablism (damn you spellcheck) and shared experience - which is most useful when faced with the cloying baggage of bean counters and self appointed guardians of the soul-less compendium that this project was never intended to be."[125] I endorse that. I wish some more of us would watch CfD. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC).

• There are two aspects to this- the questions being, do these catagories it help or hinder the encyclopaedia? Briefly, as to helping, it could be argued that they do. Not necessarilly in the material sense; but, if (as Drmies touched on, above) they foster a sense of collegiality or, dare I say- pace WP:NOTWEBHOST- a sense of collaboration and comradeship, then that can only be beneficial to the project. Then, do they hurt the project? Clearly not. And the only editors they exclude are those- as in every other catagory- who wish to be excluded. I think this is a casebook for WP:IAR. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I think the proposed deletions are a misguided attempt to make WP more professional. The point that is missed is that in even the most rigorous workplaces we still bring in cookies for our coworkers, celebrate birthdays and babies, stand and talk for a few minutes about our kids, pets, former colleagues we miss, the cold that's going around the office ... These categories fall under the getting-to-know-your-colleagues process that fosters loyalty, cooperation, compassion and camaraderie. If people didn't do that at my company I'd be worried. We can't adopt a grim humorless "why aren't you people at your desks working!?" attitude - we're all volunteers. Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Acroterion, I did indeed bring cookies...hold on...I have Lemonades, Peanut Butter Patties, Caramel Delites, and a box of Thin Mints. $4, and I accept transfers to my off-shore Wikipedia account. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll check in the break room when I finish with this afternoon's project submission. I'll take the Thin Mints, please. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• This seems sad and although I don't like being rude, a bit ridiculous. Acroterion may well be right about it being an attempt to make userpages more professional, but let's face it, those are the last things readers will see, and people have enough fun, silly, sometimes annoying stuff at the top of their user pages. As Bish says, we need shared foolishness - this place can be difficult enough at times, sometimes damn depressing, and if these categories get a chuckle, more power to them I say! To argue that they do "not help foster encyclopedic collaboration" or are "not useful for fostering cooperation" misses the point completely. And if they are "joke categories", a term used as a reason to delete, what's wrong with a joke? Another reason given for deletion is just plain wrong: "no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia." Seriously? No one is going to look at these categories and say "that person looks interesting, I might want to work with them". IAR! IAR! IAR!. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @VegaDark:, there was supposed to be a question mark after "Seriously? No one is going to look at these categories and say "that person looks interesting, I might want to work with them?" - like that. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I too am against deletion of any of them, unless they're overtly polemic (which none of the examples above are.) I also think this is another one of these things where we're really over-estimating how much the general reader looks into these things. Almost all of these sorts of things (categories on user pages) are going to go unnoticed by the vast majority of editors even, let alone your casual readers. We need to focus on much bigger issues on the encyclopedia, not minor harmless instances of navel gazing like this... Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Seconding Doug Weller's comments. Allowing non-harmful (even if non-helpful) material for users' pages like these categories or like userboxes encourages community involvement, sense of belonging, and hopefully increase user retention. It's like being able to personalize your cubical at work. Minimal harm, likely benefits, overall net positive to the project. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Wow, nearly a decade on and we're still fighting the same battles - see the various Wikipedian category redirects deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007 (where I note VegaDark features heavily). I am mostly depressed by the lost time spend debating, deleting, (re)creating and (re?)debating these categories. They are harmless and there are clearly a lot of contributors who would like to keep them. @VegaDark: Have you really spent a decade crusading against Wikipedian categories? Please can we end this timesink and leave them alone? WJBscribe (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I think Category:Wikipedians who are "out to get you" and/or your garage band is genuinely funny. Obviously should not be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Is this related to the recent attempts to get rid of redlinked usercats? There was a long discussion about it somewhere. If the cat people want to make Wikipedia look more professional, they could perhaps start by putting their heads together to see if there is a better way of notifying affected people/articles when cats are proposed for deletion. The current system is fairly underhand.

  As for the point directly raised here, keep them for the reasons others have already said. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really see how this is necessarily an incident, as much as it is a larger discussion regarding these categories. I can certainly see the reasoning behind nominating them. DarkKnight2149 15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I am beginning to feel better already. The categories are indeed harmless, and, all in all, create a positive "work-environment" (at least imho). One might even think of a Halo effect by this so-called silliness. Lectonar (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• No breaks! Coffee is for closers! If you've got time to lean, you've got time to clean! Do more with less! Give 110% every day! Seriously, I don't think anyone would want to be a volunteer in a work environment where all fun and humor is totally eliminated.--WaltCip (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not surprised that a small group of editors trying to set and then implement policy as to what any user can put on their userpage has ended up here. I first came across this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 16#Category:Wikipedians who don't GAF when the category turned pink on my userpage. I've been following the subsequent discussion; it seems there is a feeling among some editors that allowing users to categorize themselves however they feel makes it difficult to maintain the category system (e.g. [126], [127]), although I haven't seen a convincing explanation as to why. I asked what "lists of categories" this supposedly disrupts but I did not get a response. Personally I don't care what categories a user decides to place their userpage in nor whether or not those categories actually exist, so long as those categories aren't deliberately harmful. I'm not at all opposed to insisting on a structure for these categories (they should perhaps all be children of Category:Wikipedians or whatever) but I don't like the idea of any small group of users opining on what is or is not beneficial to encyclopedic collaboration, nor imposing that opinion on the entire project. I'm also pro-foolishness, in case anyone didn't already know that, and yes, I will enjoy your observation about having an opinion in a discussion about not giving a fuck.

Side note: Cydebot deleted this category with a link to the incorrect day's log. Bug? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I facepalmed when I saw people nominating these categories for deletion with the rationale that they don't help the encyclopedia. I literally facepalmed. Because -not to put anyone on blast but it needs to be said- that is one of the most phenomenally ignorant rationales. Anything that makes WP more fun helps the encyclopedia, end of. This isn't an opinion or a judgement; this is a fact which can be confirmed by 99.9% of the population in general, and by 99.99% of all psychologists, sociologist and psychiatrists in detail. What about that remaining 0.1% and 0.01%? They're the ones !voting to delete these categories.

Anyone who cannot recognize that should read robot and human and write up a 5000 word report comparing and contrasting the two, because I strongly suspect you don't appreciate the difference fully. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative proposal - Create Category:Categories that supposedly do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration, add the whole lot to it, give OP a barnstar for giving us a good inside joke, and call it a day. TimothyJosephWood 17:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Wow, an AN/I post about this? Fist I get attacked [128] [129] out of the blue for a good faith nomination, now this? One need only look through my deleted contributions to see I've been making similar nominations for years, and I'm very proud of the user category work that I've done. I'm trying to follow our very own guideline over at WP:USERCAT in order to foster a more encyclopedic environment, similar to why we implemented Wikipedia:Userbox migration for templates. In the userspace, however, there is no "User category" namespace. Many of those above seem to think I am trying to stifle your views - that's completely incorrect. This has nothing to do with that - you are free to scream you wish a particular Wikipedian comes back all day long on your userpage - the only issue I have is doing so by way of a user category which violates our guidelines, a guideline I happen to be in full support of. Those who are annoyed with this should focus on changing the guideline that I'm attempting to enforce rather than take issue with me. And for the majority of those commenting above, there is currently an ongoing RfC (although about to be closed) that presented the option that several of you are encouraging (i.e. not directly requiring that user categories need to improve the encyclopedia). That option had virtually zero support. Based on that, the majority of positions so far expressed here represent a minority viewpoint as to what our policy on user categories should be, unless everyone above is simply arguing WP:IAR (IAR only applies when the result improves the encyclopedia, so I would strongly disagree that is the case here or with any of the user categories I nominate). If you want to open up a wider discussion about changing our policies on user categories, great! Again, I will stress that this should be taken up with changing policy rather than taking it up with me personally. That's like attacking the district attorney who prosecutes a case where the current law has been violated and you're a group suggesting that the law should be changed. Take it up with the legislature, please. VegaDark (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• A guideline is not policy. And if people haven't picked up on your years of work on usercats that might say more for how the notification system (doesn't) work well and the ghetto-like nature of those interested in cats than it does about the WP community at large. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Did someone mention userboxes? I thought they were all deleted back in 2005.[130] Thincat (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• @VegaDark: Your analogy with a D.A. would ring a little more true if (1) D.A.s were volunteers free to choose which cases they prosecute according to their whim; (2) Wikipedia guidelines had the force of law; and (3) a legislature was required to alter said guidelines. Unfortunately for you, (1) they aren't; (2) they don't; and (3) a simple consensus is sufficient - such as you can observe here and at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 #Category:Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support for "shared foolishness". Paul August ☎ 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I find the argument that allowing editors the freedom to engage in tomfoolery that hurts no-one is not an improvement to the project to be ridiculously spurious. I further find the implication that 'enforcing' a guideline in a manner that annoys so many other editors in favor of bowing to the rather clear consensus in this thread and elsewhere to be equally as spurious. Finally, I find the suggestion that a formal process should be required to establish what the community has already made quite clear in this discussion and elsewhere in response to this issue to be right down there at the bottom of the quality slope with the other two. With those three considerations in mind, I'm afraid to say that I am honestly unable to muster up any respect for such an editor's judgement on just about any matter involving other people. A certain 5000 word essay might change my mind, however. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Further comments @User:Bishonen, As to "VegaDark certainly makes a reasonable point about the self-selection, but on the other hand: is it a group "representative of the community as a whole" that patrols the CfD board?", couldn't that argument be used to invalidate all CfDs? Why have CfD at all? We have a public forum for these discussions and neutral people who care about our category system participate, if you would like to reform CfD then by all means create a proposal. @User:Acroterion, I'm perfectly fine with Wikipedia not being this strict enviroment where we aren't always 100% working on content improvement, so long as this type of thing is seperable from our actual encyclopedic content. I would sumbit that my position reflects the wider consensus of the community based on the same rationale being applied to Wikipedia:Userbox migration getting unencyclopedic templates out of the template namespace. Unfortunately as I've already pointed out, that's not an option when it comes to user categories as there's only one namespace for categories, hence the guideline about what is allowable or not. I would also sumbit that the RfC I've already linked to, which has had far more participation than this has, has reached a different conclusion about the required utility of user categories to the project. @User:Doug Weller "No one is going to look at these categories and say "that person looks interesting, I might want to work with them" - I fully agree with you, which is why I nominated these for deletion. That's exactly what our current guideline requires for an acceptable user category. Perhaps you should work to get the guideline change if you believe consensus on that guideline has changed. @User:WJBscribe I'm a volunteer and am free to spend my volunteer time on the areas that most interest me. Reforming the user category system is one of those interests. I'm sorry you feel that is a waste of time, but it is my time to waste if so. @User:Ivanvector "I don't like the idea of any small group of users opining on what is or is not beneficial to encyclopedic collaboration, nor imposing that opinion on the entire project" - Isn't that all of AfD, CfD, MfD, etc? Again, if you want to reform one of these processes, create a proposal. but I can hardly be blamed for using the system we have in place to discuss these categories. @User:MjolnirPants "I further find the implication that 'enforcing' a guideline in a manner that annoys so many other editors in favor of bowing to the rather clear consensus in this thread and elsewhere to be equally as spurious" - I can just as easily point to the RfC I already linked to for a more participated on consensus suggesting that the types of categories I am nominating for deletion are not appropriate. I'm not sure why you think this small discussion should override an entire longstanding guideline without proper notifications on notice boards, Wikiprojects, etc. that would be affected by this change. It's also unclear exactly what you are suggesting this supposed consensus would result in. Overturn WP:USERCAT? Ban me from making good faith nominations at CfD for categories I genuinely feel are detrimental to the project? I'm also curious where this "elsewhere" is that you refer to where there is supposed consensus for this. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • My bad, I meant to put a question mark at the end of a sentence and failed. I meant to write "Seriously? No one is going to look at these categories and say "that person looks interesting, I might want to work with them?" Doug Weller talk 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • And the context of my comment (read the sentence before it) made that obvious. Doug Weller talk 21:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @VegaDark: What RfC? You linked to WP:RFC, but there's no such consensus there, that's just a page explaining what an RfC is and how it works. The Userbox Migration link doesn't represent a consensus, but an informal compromise intended to avoid a contentious discussion that isn't actually applicable to categories (which can't be moved into userspace). As for actually applying USERCAT to your nominations (which no-one has accused you of making in bad faith, but rather with a complete lack of understanding of social norms), I've read through your nominations and rejected each and every instance of your insistence that these categories do not help facilitate cooperation between editors because any first-year psychology student (or socially-well-adjusted person over the age of 20 or so) can tell you that people are way more likely to cooperate with those they perceive as sharing their values, interests and qualities. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I was referring to this RfC that I linked to in my first comment. One of the options there, option #4, suggests that users categories should not need to directly benefit this encyclopedia. This option had almost no support among all participants. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So you have rejected multiple editor editors explanation of the benefit these categories provide to the project (explanations based in proven science as well as common sense) because reasons? Do you honestly believe that people will be more collaborative in an environment in which they are less able to express themselves, subject to more and stricter rules and in which actions which affect them are taken without their input, despite this being a project built from the ground up around the concept of inclusion? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• So, in this discussion about one persons good faith nomination of userspace categories which they feel are not appropriate of volunteers there is only one comment about the fact the nominator does not feel the need to notify those 'volunteer' editors of the discussion...? It has been a while, admittedly, but I seem to remember that in deletion discussions of any nature those involved previously in the matter were to be notified (as they might have in good faith been involved believing that they are complying with community policy). Perhaps things have changed, so a nominator need only provide their rationale and that consensus is whether the closing admin thinks they have made their case? It would certainly be much easier without bothering to weigh the counter arguments - because those who might have reason to provide them are unaware of the discussion.

Damn not understanding interpretations of reasons for deletions of categories, the nominator seems to be unfamiliar with a basic requirement of consensus (including inviting alternate understandings of interpretation) which was, when I used to contribute, pretty much core to the basis of editing. While consensus can be found in one person working to the correct perception of policy and guideline against how every many others working in good faith to an improper understanding, you will never be able to prove consensus if you do not allow the others the freedom to make their understanding clear before asking which stands best to the wording and spirit of the policy. I find it incredulous that an editor (and admin) has been able to populate deletion discussions with no basis in which to judge consensus as they feel (and no policy, guideline or essay quoted) that they need not inform the "self selecting" groups that will be effected. WP:Idon'tlikeit works all ways, and not just in the discussions themselves.LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• • LHvU, I mentioned it once (not sure if I'm the one who mentioned it whom you noticed) and it had been mentioned once before. I share your surprise that this isn't a bigger concern in this thread. The thought of nominating user categories for deletion without notifying the only users who have demonstrated any interest in those categories looks awfully shady to me. I'm not suggesting this was a bad faith move, but the argument supporting it was basically that they wouldn't have been able to get them deleted if they had. It's WP:CANVASSING by omission. If you can't get a user category deleted if the editors in that category want to keep it, then it shouldn't be deleted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh my God he's back! Quick, get to CfD with Category:Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back as it's clearly obsolete. Possibly I am missing some inside joke here GoldenRing (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• As I like to say...

A Note to the Humor-Impaired

One should beware of those who cannot or will not laugh when others are merry, for if not mentally defective they are spiteful, selfish or abnormally conceited ... Great men of all nations and of all times have possessed a keen appreciation of the ridiculous, as wisdom and wit are closely allied.

— Leander Hamilton McCormick, Characterology; an exact science embracing physiognomy, phrenology and pathognomy, reconstructed, amplified and amalgamated ... (1920)

EEng 02:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I wish this thread was a little less characterising one set of people as humourless, curmudgeonly killjoys (btw I'd put myself in the selfish or abnormally conceited category), and a little more focussed on whether 'categories' are the best place for such humour. Bishonen, whilst I'm sure that the 6 members of the "wish LHvU would come back", category are quite fond of it (and him), what on earth are the 95+% of editors who cannot possibly understand what this refers to, supposed to make of it? Therefore, how exactly is this fostering any kind of atmosphere? There are tons of places where humour exists in abundance, some of it is brilliant IMO, but what is funny to me may be incomprehensible to you and 'clogging up the works' with other people's humour is not appropriate IMO. Pincrete (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If this hadn't come up in the context of a dozen simultaneous deletion noms which the nominator must (or should) certainly have known would rankle people, followed by tone-deaf I'm-sticking-to-my-guns-ing, I'd have kept my mouth shut. EEng 01:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban Proposal

The following discussion is closed. 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 wasn't going to go this far, but as VegaDark has raised the issue, "Ban me from making good faith nominations at CfD for categories I genuinely feel are detrimental to the project?", I'm beginning to feel that he really doesn't understand how far different his interpretation of "categories I genuinely feel are detrimental to the project" is from so many other Wikipedians' view in these cases. Therefore I propose:

• A topic ban of one month from CfD for VegaDark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hopefully a brief rest from these labours will help clarify his mind on the need to understand what "genuinely detrimental to the project" means, and it may also show that the CfD process won't collapse catastrophically in that time. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This should never have been an incident thread. This thread is just a form of canvassing for those cfds. Any now you want to punish someone for daring to have a different opinion. Let's bring a speedy end to this bullying. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Shenanigans. Please explain to me what it is about ANI that causes editors who participate here to be predisposed to oppose the deletion of silly user categories. You said this was canvassing, now defend it. Please go on to make a case that this is any form of bullying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme: On the contrary, I don't want to punish VegaDark, but I do want to see an end to these sort of unwanted deletion discussions, where it is obvious that he is out of step with the vast majority. Sadly, he seems unable to see that. Taking a rest from the nominations for a few weeks should help him regain some perspective. Now, I'm going to ask you nicely to strike that personal attack where you call me a bully. You understand, I hope, why it would be better for you to do that voluntarily. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This whole thread is one big bullying session. How dare VegaDark have a different opinion. Punish them. VegaDark is so far out out line with the community yet many of their cfds still have unanimous SUPPORT. All those venting their outrage here where it doesn't belong yet not comment at cfd? If you don't want to punish why are you proposing a punishment? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read Bully and try again. Even the proposal to impose sanctions isn't bullying. It's an attempt to impose a punishment, that much I agree with. But getting hyperbolic in your response isn't going to help your case because a hyperbolic argument is so much easier to defeat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. And were you going to explain how, exactly, [t]his thread is just a form of canvassing for those cfds? --Calton | Talk 03:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The original post wa a call for people to look at some cfds. There was not an incident that warranted admin attention. This was the wrong venue for such a notification. The notification message was biased, making it inappropriate (termed campaigning). duffbeerforme (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything but what you said about the notification message. That's only because I'm unfamiliar with the message in question and can't form an opinion. I just want to be sure that this discussion isn't going to dissolve into hyperbolic accusations of the other side utterly ruining WP for all time. Accusations like bullying and canvassing, when they don't clearly apply, should be left out so as to avoid unnecessary escalation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So in other words, no, you can't actually answer my question. --Calton | Talk 09:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Question clearly answered. Recipient clearly incompetent. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support I have zero tolerance for wet-blanket busybodies in user space. EEng 02:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• This is ridiculous - Just to be clear, for the record, the sole basis for this is 1) I made a good faith nomination (I don't think anyone is disputing my nominations are in good faith), 2) I defended my position on the nomination instead of agreeing with the dissent. Right? That's literally the basis here for this proposed topic ban? This is preposterous, and duffbeerforme is right on the money in calling this a bullying session. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for your conduct here. I'll also note before this brigade started that the nomination in question had three users agree with deletion and another one since. As Bernie Sanders likes to say, the notion that these type of categories are detrimental to the project is not a pie-in-the-sky idea that I'm out on my own on. WP:USERCAT didn't become a guideline by chance. But, how dare I have an opinion that you don't agree with, so ban me. That sounds like an action in the spirit of Wikipedia. I'll also note the discussion was just closed and the closing admin, User:BrownHairedGirl, noted the arguments for deletion were "well founded in policy." VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• You know, invoking "good faith" isn't the all-purpose shield you seem to think it is, since nothing about "good faith" precludes some action from being, say, tone-deaf, disruptive, clueless, racist, tasteless, rude, offensive, embiggening, obsequious, purple, and/or clairvoyant. Also, I didn't realize that one single editor (User:BrownHairedGirl) had become the sole arbiter of what is or isn't allowed on Wikipedia: when did she get the promotion?--Calton | Talk 03:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ach, Calton, you're arguing with VegaDark, so there's no need to snipe at me.
  I closed a bunch of discussions which were ~36 hours beyond their 7-day period (having closed several dozen CFDs in the last week), and I didn't close all of them in a way which VegaDark would like. If the relevant guideline was different, then I would have weighed the discussions differently, but it is at is. I'm happy for anyone to take those closes to DRV if they disagree with my reasoning. Similarly, if if the consensus is to change the guideline to allow joke categories, then that's fine, and these issues can be reopened ... but when I close any CFD, I'll weigh it against the guidelines as they currently stand rather than against my own personal preferences or anyone else's.
  There's clearly a lot of support for keeping jokey user categories ... so why not open an RFC to test whether that adds up to consensus to change WP:USERCAT? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sniping at you, I was pointing out the ridiculousness of VegaDark's Appeal to Authority -- though as long as I'm here, I guess I will say that in my opinion, yeah, you made a bad, essentially unilateral decision. --Calton | Talk 09:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Vega. This is a fairly ridiculous problem, and as such, it inspired a ridiculous solution. We haven't even really tried good old fashioned discussion. Vega has commented a total of three times in this thread, and other than them, I'm the most active participant with four paragraph-length comments. The length of this thread is due to the number of participants (23 by my count) to have commented. The mere fact that a large number of people disagree with what Vega has been doing is no reason to assume that Vega will not, given enough time, listen to the clear consensus here and lay off.

so I strongly oppose the imposition of sanctions until such time as it becomes clear that sanctions are the only way to deal with this, because everything I've read about them tells me that they are intended to be a last resort. Give Vega a chance to concede the point before talking about punishing (because that's what this is) them for this behavior. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I will abide by consensus. If an RfC is opened and the conclusion of that is to modify the guideline to allow these types of categories, then I would have no need to nominate them (although I would disagree with that result, so be it). I don't think a discussion here is a proper substitute to override years and years of consensus and deletion reviews that for the most part follow this consensus. I'll also repeat what I said before at the user category RfC, the bottom line should be improvement of the encyclopedia. If ultimately the encyclopedia is improved by having these types of categories, I would be in support of keeping them. I'm not sure of a surefire way to determine that however. I'm certainly not convinced by any of the arguments put forth. At this point I can only follow my gut which suggests that fostering a more encyclopedic user category environment translates to a better encyclopedia overall, which obviously you disagree with. But I'll keep fighting to improve the encyclopedia in that regard until I'm convinced otherwise or consensus suggests otherwise. VegaDark (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you not continue nominating these categories in the meantime. Regardless of any issue of consensus, it's clear that your actions are highly contentious, and continuing them while a discussion is ongoing is not a good-faith move.

I also want to remind you that there's no policy which states that consensus can only come from an RfC. Consensus is the ultimate goal of all discussions on Wikipedia. So arguing that there's no consensus here is a demonstrably wrong position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. VegaDark, no one wants to stop you from making good faith nominations at CfD for categories [you] genuinely feel are detrimental to the project, they want you to stop making tone-deaf nominations at CfD for categories, which is actually detrimental to the project. If you want to play prosecuting attorney, there are other places. And MjolnirPants, given that VegaDark loudly and explicitly thinks he's doing the right thing and is treating this like some sort of crusade, then hoping that he suddenly see the light is wishful thinking. --Calton | Talk 03:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And MjolnirPants, given that VegaDark loudly and explicitly thinks he's doing the right thing and is treating this like some sort of crusade, then hoping that he suddenly see the light is wishful thinking. I wouldn't know. Because we've barely gotten started actually discussing this. I would generally wait at least a few days to see if someone can get through to them before jumping to the conclusion that they will not change their mind. Had Vega doubled down by proposing a bunch of new user categories for deletion, or simply dismissed everything said in this thread without attempting to defend their actions, I might agree with you. But this is a very different situation than, for example, an editor who has been pushing a POV in article space for several months. It takes more than a look at their edit history and block log to know if Vega is likely to continue doing this. Even if we can't convince them, we can make them understand that the community opposes this sort of editing. And, for the record, Vega has been consistently using their interpretation of policy to inform their edits, a good faith interpretation that is wrong not due to some fundamental inability to understand policy, but due to a (rather ridiculous, but still) misunderstanding of organizational sociology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It makes no sense to sanction an editor for upholding an existing guideline, esp one which has been stable for a long time. If VegaDark is wrong to make these nominations, then the guideline WP:USERCAT is also wrong. There are clearly some editors who do feel very strongly that the guideline is wrong, so the solution is to open an RFC on changing it and have a moratorium on any related CFDs while that discussion is underway. But a ban without a change in the guideline, this looks like a lynch mob. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • PS I think it was foolish of VegaDark to propose this self-ban. Not a good way to calm things down.
    But despite the unwise ban-me-if-you-dare side of VegaDark's proposal, topic-banning anyone won't resolve the underlying issue of an outbreak of discontent with a guideline. Get a consensus on that, and the swirl of conduct accusations becomes irrelevant; but leave the guideline unresolved, and nothing is solved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • User:BrownHairedGirl, VegaBlack did not propose it, RexxS did. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @Duffbeerforme: thanks. I was tired and misread the proposal. Sorry, VegaDark. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not necessary. The correct approach is to establish a consensus to: (a) make it clear at WP:USERCAT that such categories are permitted; and (b) to change the process at WP:CFD so that it requires that all users in a user category should be notified if someone nominates delete the category. WJBscribe (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Over reaction. Paul August ☎ 12:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose VegaDark is acting in good faith. My chief concern is that a letter-of-policy approach comes off as heavy handed and humorless, and that policy ought to be modified to avoid a grumpy no-fun-allowed environment. I have other concerns about how CfD operates with respect to encyclopedic content that I'll take up in a more appropriate venue. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose VegaDark is acting in good faith implementing policy, and, dare I say it, whilst Drmies' defence of a category is VERY funny, none of the categories themselves seem even remotely funny, or even comprehensible in some cases. Pincrete (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Long standing consensus over many years

WP:USERCAT is based upon YEARS of CFD and UCFD discussions. See also this Index of past discussions.

Yes people use categories at times to "snipe at the world/system/process/policy/event/whatever", and call it humour. And rather invariably when the tumult dies down, as it usually does, the categories are deleted.

This recent tumult is merely because ONE presumably well-meaning editor (NOT vegadark) decided to make a bunch of redlinked cats blue.

And once blue, they went before cfd.

In the past, rather than create more tempests in teapots (like the threads above, by the by), and as long as they aren't being too disruptive, polemic or battleground-ish, we just eventually kind of quietly turned a blind eye to the red linked protest/humour cats, and when the tumult died down, removed them to clear the tool (Special:WantedCategories), and life went on.

I doubt this will be much different.

So I guess my suggestion is: Enjoy your pitchforks and torches fest, we seem to have one of these fairly often these days, next it'll be about pop culture lists again, no doubt. A big kerfuffle, wasting everyone's time when there's an encyclopedia to manage and edit. Shrugs, whatever.

If you want a solution, just delete those recently created category pages, leave them red on userpages for now and hold an rfc on redlinked categories.

In the meantime, trying to string up a hardworking admin who does a lot of that behind the scenes housekeeping work, seems rather counterproductive, just a thought. - jc37 06:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be confirming that the categorisation regulars (or a subset of them) tend to operate in a way that has the appearance of being underhand. And that, as I said in my first post in this thread, this is connected to the recent brouhaha concerning redlinked cats and Special:WantedCategories. Some people need to get a life, it would seem. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no such confirmation in Jc37's post. What exactly are you suggesting is underhand, Sitush? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

(EC)Well the way it is phrased indicates they are just 'quietly' deleted when no one is looking. IMHO I dont think this is a terrible way to deal with clearly unencyclopedic silliness, but then I think the entire fight over it is ridiculous. People complain about red-linked cats, so editors make them blue, then people complain there are useless blue cats and try to delete them. Its a manufactured and pointless merry-go-round of hysterical pitch-forking and anyone involved on all sides should just go find something else to do. The key point of applying IAR to policies and guidelines is that by IARing, you are improving the encyclopedia. And frankly there is little to recommended IAR on any side here, either for the existence or non-existance of silly cats. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that is how I read Jc's comment re: when no-one is looking. If that is what is going on, it's a poor show. The categorisation people are often beleaguered as it is without creating a rod for their own backs. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not a particularly good faith interpretation of an explanation of how routine housekeeping continues unseen, and is uncontroversial 99% of the time, but is periodically interrupted when someone decides to create a drama over a soon-forgotten bit of trivia.
It's disappointing that so few editors seem concerned that Special:WantedCategories is clogged up with redlinks on user pages, impeding the ability of editors to do the maintenance task of fixing the redlinks which actually need fixing so that readers can navigate between articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jc37: It strikes me that you propose a rather odd approach to Special:WantedCategories. Instead of creating the categories that people want, you instead propose to remove the redlinks. Would creating the categories (assuming they're not inappropriate - offensive, divisive, polemic etc) not be the more natural response to entries in Special:WantedCategories? The RfC that people seem to want going by this thread isn't about redlinked usercategories, it's about making WP:USERCAT more permissive of these sorts of categories, so they stay blue. That would also be a solution that would avoid "wasting everyone's time when there's an encyclopedia to manage and edit". After all, as I pointed out and you confirm, these nominations have been going on for at least a decade, so your current approach is not avoiding time being wasted on this issue. I agree that the fight over user categories is a waste of time, but I think it might be time to try a different solution. One that might actually work (by which I mean, actually settle the issue, so that people can move on to other things). You've tried the stick, how about trying a carrot instead? WJBscribe (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if I was less-than clear in my comments.

First, I didn't suggest anything underhanded or whatever. everything is transparent (this is a wiki afterall). I was talking about avoiding needless drama. There is a long standing consensus that categories (not just usercats) should not be used as "tags" or "labels" to a page. The point of categories is navigation. And though we shouldn't worry about technical overhead, there is a bit of one with categories. So we keep it in mind, but we don't panic over it. (there's also the category clutter issue for articles but that's beyond the scope of this discussion). And categories have limitations due to their technical side (not able to cite a ref for cat addition, or even logging when they've been added or removed).

So there's more going on here than suggesting that some people seemingly with no sense of humour are arbitrarily out to spoil someone's "fun" protest.

I'm not going to even try to restate the long history of category discussions which led to things like WP:OCAT, or it's usercat relation which is transcluded to USERCAT.

What I was trying to say is that there are always "freedom of speech" POV pushers on wikipedia, who seem more interested in playtime and protest and such. Once upon a time there were the userbox wars. When that dust settled, there still were usercategories which was a problem due to technical issues among other things, so (as I recall) the result was: If you want to make a statement on your userpage (within USERPAGE guidelines of course), feel free. But using the technical means of the category system, clogging up it's various tools and such, is not the way to do that.

Will there always be those who say IWANTIT? Sure. And whenever the parade they're in is done with their protest placards and posters, the street sweepers will come along and clean up the mess after them. What I was saying above is that at some point in the past, we just mostly stopped trying to clean the streets during the protest : )

But anyway, this is a tangent. As I said above this whole thing with vegadark happened due to a confluence of technical issues, and had ZERO to do with the IWANTIT crowd, who showed up, not even knowing what the initial issue was. sigh. Always another event (excuse) to whip out the pitchforks.

The duality of the category system is that while categories have editable pages "attached", categories themselves aren't actually "pages" as such. it's an idiosyncracy of the navigation system of their design.

So imagine if a bunch of categories with redlinked "pages" had someone create those pages which turned the links blue? He has said he had no interest in the cats, so this had zero to do with iwantit, and more to do with cleanup. And by so doing, created a different cleanup issue. I believe vegadark (who has - rather patiently, I think - tried to explain this) nominated them for cfd rather than just speedy deleting them as patent nonsense (which most were).

So my point was: let's undo the original contention. If we "un-create" the bluelinks (which noone wanted, which even the bluelink maker did for merely tool cleanup reasons), then we return to the status quo, and remove the disruption, which, as we are all good wikipedians, we all hope for of course.

And once the disruption has been removed, have an rfc. Go have fun. But, as we all know, a single local consensus here is not likely to overturn multiple broader, stable, consensuses, without community-wide discussion. Hence: a legitimate rfc. Try the village pump : )

I hope this helps clarify. And I believe WJBscribe is aware I respect him and his thoughts, so please do not read any "tone" here as intended as anything but my sense of respect for him (and others) and merely my sense of "blah" at this situation. Happy editing : ) - jc37 13:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we're agreed that an RfC is needed to resolve what the wider consensus is on this issue. You believe that the wider consensus supports your practice and that it is only a "local consensus" at WP:ANI that is dissenting. By contrast, the vast majority here believe that it is a "local consensus" of CfD regulars that is out of touch with wider consensus. No doubt we'll end up finding out who is right... WJBscribe (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as a technical nobody, a little bird who edits completely on instinct, I still have NO idea what these supposed category problems are all about. They're not tags, but for navigation? Well, I can navigate via tags--but in the case of these user categories, those deemed useful and those deemed useless, I have actually navigated through them to go from one user page to another, for instance to find that certain kind of editor with that certain skill or--gasp--interest, because we have many editors and sometimes one needs to seek one out for collaboration, on an article or on some administrative or behavioral matter. BTW--our cat only has three members? Don't tell LHvU... Drmies (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note: There is an RfC about this at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. I added a notice at the top of the thread, but most editors are editing the bottom, so here it is, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Close - The only part of this that required administrator tools has already been closed, and an RfC is underway. Nothing left to do here. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Range block requested

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

---

Persistent disruption of United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016 by a dynamic IP editor claiming to be third-party candidate Kurt Evans. This editor has previously edit-warred trying to remove all mention of his candidacy. He has mad numerous complaints on the talk page, in edit summaries, and in a previous AN/I thread. These complaints lead to an RfC, on which I collaborated with @Tazerdadog: and @Cunard: in closing. The IP address continued to edit-war, resulting in indefinite page-protection. In these edits, they made repeated legal threats1,2, despite NLT warnings in other summaries and on at least one IP talk page. They have now gone farther on RPP, stating: I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's "NLT" policies, but it's true that after months and months of dealing with this garbage, I'm now planning to pursue defamation lawsuits against Wikimedia and several regular Wikipedia editors.

IPs used are from at least two ranges: 208.53.224.26, 208.53.225.8, 208.53.226.58

216.249.247.102, 216.249.247.177, 216.249.248.209, 216.249.248.237, 216.249.248.92, 216.249.249.156, 216.249.249.46, 216.249.251.158, 216.249.252.39, 216.249.252.72, 216.249.253.233

@Mifter: blocked 208.53.231.242, but these are probably more that I didn't find. He is prolific and changes IP's with almost every comment.

Apologies if this is on the wrong board, thank you in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I would endorse this range block...this is definitely needed. Constant legal threats and disruption led to the page requiring indefinite protection after the IP user claiming to be Evans was dissatisfied with the outcome of the RfC. -- Dane ^talk 04:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Dispute over removed material

A few days ago I've started editing Tourism in Georgia (country) article, I study tourism in university and thanks to that background tried to find every useful material what is in connection with Georgian Tourism. You can see how the article enlarged after my updates and new materials before and after. Working on the article I decided that it will also useful to include UNWTO classification for Georgia, in a tourism industry and reports this classification is wide used since UNWTO is the main tourism international organization. In that classification, you can see tourist arrivals, receipts, annual change and many other things. In general, the classification shows how strong or weak is a country in comparison to its neighbors or world countries. Here you can see about what material is the dispute ►[131]. After some time appeared User:Chipmunkdavis and made some improvements but he also removed that material about UNWTO classification. As I understood from his summaries he underestimates that international organization's role (maybe mostly because of incompetence in tourism). I restored his remove and opened discussion on his talk page. You can see that discussion's result. Instead of cooperating with me and having good faith he 3 times reverted (1, 2, 3) that material violating WP:3RR, he could ask me for more explanations but his only goal was revert and remove. Also, he thinks that this material is there only for Georgia's promotion as the European country, and he also said that is why I removed Asian category, but I wrote why I did so because according to the WTO classification Georgian tourism industry is a part of European tourism. You can see that in the end, I tried luck to solve the dispute without a third party but his answer convinced me that further discussions will not have a result and will be only edit-wars. One thing that really irritates is his position that he is master of wiki content and his the only truth and others have no rights or importance, you can place tons of arguments but none will be heard. He claimed that UNWTO classification is not used and it is not important (why?). In favor of me, I have my tourism study background and this excel file of Georgian National Tourism Administration's report where countries are classified under the UNWTO classification what once more proves that this classification is important and Chipmunkdavis is wrong. All in all what does wrong the material? it gives more information about particular country's positions in its tourism region, I think a problem is when we have a lack of information than information in details.--g. balaxaZe★ 13:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze, content disputes are not resolved here. See WP:DR for your options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN yes I tried it first but they redirected me here because the case is not only about pure edits. Please do not close so fast.--g. balaxaZe★ 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze, you have zero posts on the article's talk page and opened a totally inappropriate DRN case solely accusing the other editor of wikihounding. You need to actually follow the dispute resolution process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN see here my first discussion at WP:DR: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_147#User_talk:Chipmunkdavis.23WP:WIKIHOUNDING. That wikihounding was said because of a lot of past patterns when the user was appearing after my edits (even archiving his talk page at the same time as me) and was changing them in his manner. The rest is said above.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So where to go? I just want to settle this case.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: I've highlighted the relevant portions of the comment to you: " Report harassment or hounding at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. If there is a content issue, discuss it on an article talk page." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN how to discuss the content issue with an involvement of other experienced editors? That article is not so popular. Anyway I want to discuss this case with admins to prevent future repeats. I am sure without this there will be a lot of similar cases.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: Admins have no more authority in resolving disputes than any other editor. They have to abide by the exact same rules, so discussing it here first won't help anything. Please discuss it at the article talk first, and feel free to post a neutral invitation to come participate on the talk page of any relevant WikiProject. That should attract enough other editors to get things handled. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze:, how to discuss the content issue with an involvement of other experienced editors? Not by using ANI for that purpose. The WP:DR link gives you the proper options. Start by using the article's talk page. Ask for a WP:30. Open a WP:RFC or go to WP:DRN if those options prove fruitless. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay I will try your suggestions. Just to mention I've used that user's talk page to solve the problem, the issue is caused not mainly by material but by his attitude.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Giorgi Balakhadze: Here are your options: You can go back to DRN and focus on content, not contributors. Any accusations of misconduct must be left out of it, but you can focus on the actual content dispute there. Otherwise, we can look into your allegations of Wikihounding here. Wikihounding is a form of harassment and, of course, we would never expect a user who is actually being stalked and harassed to engage in good faith dispute resolution with someone who's distressing them. However, you must provide evidence about the Wikihounding. You'd need to at least show us examples of how this editor is following you. If you can substantiate those concerns, of course we will help you. However coming to ANI and making bad faith accusations against an established editor in good standing with no evidence to back it up will not result in a warm welcome. Swarm ♠ 18:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Swarm I do not like to make reports about other people because they cause negative and I try to not make personally negative things. I had many confrontations with that user and he is "like controling" my edits. Of course I can start digging in histories and can find many examples of when he was appearing just after my edits but I hope this personal warning will make him stop such behaviour. --g. balaxaZe★ 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze has opened an RfC at Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country)#User Chipmunkdavis' dispute about UNWTO classification. In my view, it does not evidence a good reading of WP:RFC, and nor does it "focus on content, not contributors". I do think there are behavioural problems here. This is part of a continuous trend of misunderstanding or ignoring Wikipedia policy and guidelines (despite lecturing others on them), an unwillingness or inability to improve on that, and an unhelpful repetitive comments on contributors and appeals to authority (both in evidence here) that are not conducive to discussion. Tellingly, their participation in discussions rarely seems to last long. This has been going on for years now, and it would be nice to have some action taken on it. CMD (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgi Balakhadze: I have closed that completely inappropriately worded RFC. Your misuse or incorrect use of various processes is now bordering on becoming disruptive editing. It is expected that editors read the all the instructions for implementing a process. You don't have to get all the little details right, but in this case "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" is in bold, simply written, and is expanded in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. You are welcome to open a new RFC if you can follow these instructions. Chipmunkdavis, do you have any diffs to show this is an ongoing issue with Giorgi Balakhadze? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What diffs are you looking for, and how far back? There have been various reports in different noticeboards (searched here), which contain relevant diffs, and I hope to some extent the posts in this latest series of events speaks for themselves somewhat.

The last time they posted on my talkpage it was a similar aggressive statement and a demand to use the talkpage when they hadn't touched it themselves ([132]), followed by an apparent threat to involve a wider audience([133]). Similarly relevant to this discussion, they've accused other users of wikihounding before([134][135]). The wider pattern is that they are extremely confrontational. They regularly accuse others of POV editing or similar ([136][137][138][139][140]), say others are lying ([141][142]), and call edits they disagree with vandalism ([143][144]([145]->[146])[147][148]). This takes place while they regularly change things to fit their POV (here's a dif where they call it "minor changes"), and say things like "In Armenian literature you can find many things that are far from truth". They also like to accuse others of edit warring, an interesting example being where they told someone off for edit warring with them ([149]) and then denied edit warring themselves ([150]). All this while telling others things such as that they don't understand Wikipedia policy ([151]). Complementing all this, as well as in their comments on other editors (such as in this discussion), there's a lot of WP:POT. The general tone of their contributions is easily seen by looking through their contributions. These diffs were all taken from their last 1000 edits, however warnings noting to not edit war and use the article talkpage go back to 2013 ([152]). CMD (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Putting many diffs without context isn't fair thing, I can defend all of the diffs and answer for all of them if one will have special questions. But here is one thing, your diff-readdines clrearly shows that you are wikihourding me even for me would be hard to find all my past edits and to show them is such way, I guess you are collecting and bookmarking all of them. Once more I will repeat what you show to users is a complete misrepresentation. Also what means 2013? That time I was new in wiki and had no idea about rules. Maybe better to speak about your violation of rules?He behaves very unfriendly and unfair. CMD you can revert other users but if I revert vandalism that is bad thing? I will repeat I can answer separately for each diff if someone will be interested.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Also if you involve Louisaragon here let me tell to the audience that you both were making intrigues against me and I wasn't tagged it was an intrigue of two users against third one, is it normal here?--g. balaxaZe★ 19:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

When I add some new materials or update existing you simply reverting it and will revert them once twice until other part will not stop but not you, you alwas push your view as the most right and correct and think that other users have no rights. That tourism classificaiton issue clearly shows that you reverted them just because you want like that and you can remove sourced contribution with a summary similar to "In my mind it is inappropriate" and that's all. This is very irritative and causes all of this.--g. balaxaZe★ 19:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)\

Your first summary when reverting: Rv map which conveys little if anything, and rv ridiculous overrepresentation of one organisation's administrative divisions. Yep, those are well written and cast-iron arguments.--g. balaxaZe★ 19:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I would have to say, having "endured" Giorgi Balakhadze's editorial pattern for a decent amount of time now, that its marked by extreme hostility, hot-headedness, no control over temper, and, perhaps most importantly (I'd say this is the root of the whole story) clear IRL grievances related to the political situation surrounding the country of Georgia, which he imports into Wiki. Its so apparant, there's simply no doubt about it. I will add that this is something that's going on for quite some time now as well. Everyone who disagrees with said user, will receive the full load from him at some point. These diffs are still pretty recent for example;

• "(...) maybe before your shameless intrigues you first talk to me a?"[153]
• "(...) so please have more dignity"[154]
• "(...) he tries to show me from the negative side and he lies ".[155]
• "Be sure Aragon if you continue behaving like this (POV based intrigues) and "throwing" to me dirty I will ask admins to review this case, to make special efforts and to call down your appetite in attempts to block me."[156]

Earlier examples, alike content;

• "You are lying".[157]
• "THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GEORGIA IN ITS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS AND EVERYONE MUST ADMIT THIS."[158]
• "Sorry but you need more knowledge to understand what means imagined lines".[159]
• "You won't afraid no one with this cheap pathos about sanctions and my "POV".[160]

- LouisAragon (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Of course LouisAragon has appeared here, it would be pitty to miss such a chance right? As I said above those two users were involved in intrigue to blame to me that I am a sock-puppet (idea was LouisAragon's) and to achive a goal to see me blocked (because I cause trouble to them). Here you can see whole discussion without cuting some parts from a context as above mentioned users do [161]. This made me very angry and I answered to them after that LouisAragon even reportd me (because they like to report other users) but his misrepresentations and intrigues were ignored [162] (when something isn't true and one does it to fool people semantic meaning of this action is "a lie").
• Also, now I will start diging in history and will show to people that this is not a battle of a devil and angels. There is nothing new that all talks are around Georgia because I edit mainly about Georgia. Those two users have some kind of agenda towards it and do to Georgian-connected artilces biased edits but not with Russia, Iran, Armenia, Abkhazia or South Ossetia. The first big collision with them appeared when they removed sockpuppet's useful materials from the article Georgia (before sockpuppet was not blocked they had some disputes with some parts of material, but after his block they reverted everything and everywhere dispite that many of the contribution was useful), removed material was measured in thousands of bytes. I was against remove of so many useful materials and opened disscussion here ►[163] where admins clearly said Edits by a sock or a blocked user don't have to be reverted.

• Regarding LouisAragon's copy-paste of my comments about conflict regions I can put his POV when he says "Abhkazia and South Ossetia being a part of Georgia" [164] which clearly shows that he is not neutral. Even by wiki standards they are conflict or disputed regions but LouisAragon considers them sovereing as Turkey, US or Germany.
• Also, I said LouisAragon has its agenda to show Georgia as non-European as possible [165] (notice: CMD's revert about tourism was also about the same issue)

• Regarding CMD in the article of Georgia he uses every wiki rule what exists but do not use them with other articles for example with Abkhazia or South Ossetia, see here filling of the article with "citation needed" templates (only Georgia) [166], [167] of course I am not against citations but this is also some kind of biased editing, many "citation needed" make article worse (dispite that material was true and after I've found sources for many on them). Here [168] I found that other users also had same example of CMD's censorship like I have now.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Giorgi, providing diffs when being asked for diffs is not removing context. Nor is it a matter of any great hardship for editors to scroll down to read the conversation leading up to particular diffs. In fact if they do so in the case you mention, they'll note that despite your assertions neither LouisAragon nor myself thought you were a sock-puppet. The mention of the sockpuppet edit conversation is demonstrates a another continued lack of understanding of policies and guidelines, focusing on a single line instead of understanding relevant context. And this really shouldn't have to be said, but here's me adding cn tags to the Abkhazia article ([169]). CMD (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

CMD I was impressed with so many cn templates with Georgia and comparing two cn templates with Abkhazia gives nothing, even now I can fill Abkhazia or South Ossetia with cn templates there is still enough empty spaces but in Georgia nothing was left.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That sockpuppet edit conversation clearly shows that what I was saying was proved by other editors (and it is not lack of understanding), it was not only my view that you both didn't have to remove all materials. My main idea was to keep useful materials, because I see wikipedia as a place of knowledge but not bureaucratic machine.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ehm. We never thought you were a sock. How on earth you came to that conclusion, is beyond me. These responses once again clearly illustrate the point of this multi-faceted issue with said editor; its unfortunately far more than just a lack of understanding. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you were not direclty claiming that I am a sock-puppet but what you wrote there was clear fact of that you want to make intrigues to see those users blocked that have different view. You were disscussing that not with admins or someone else but with CMD and not tagging me (and as usually misrepresented reality).--g. balaxaZe★ 11:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, it is not you who can speak about others competence when you have such background [170] and speak to other user like this

It seems to me you have severe inferiority complexion like many diasporean Afghans, wich is quite understandable given the shitty history and reputation it has, and the shithole it still is nowadays. Pure barbarianism, tribalism, perpetual refugees, being ruled by foreigners for millennia, and child molesting seems to be interchangeable with people from that region.[171]--g. balaxaZe★ 11:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not even gonna respond to this nonsense. It's time for further admin action handling, cause this is going absolutely nowhere, as always with said user. We've reached that typical point just like with those editors who have issues with moderators at ANI, and then start picking 3-4-5-6 y/o diffs (in general, old adressed diffs) of that moderator in question, in order to prove a point that they "can't say a thing about the editor". Lel - LouisAragon (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already said about you, your intrigues, misrepresentations and biased editing. The last diff was to answer your accusation that you are not a measure of someone's competence. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Request to enforce breach of agreement

I am coming here following a small peregrination to ask to just enforce a breach of agreement by editor Asilah1981, much in accordance with his incident history and long-running incongruous/erratic behaviour. After I posted a report here,[172] my request was turned down for not being the right place, and was referred here by Peacemaker67.

The editor in question was given the opportunity to avoid an incremental block by accepting an alternative, more constructive sanction, 3 month mentoring (see incident below) for which me and Wee Curry Monster, familiar with his activity showed an scepticism, in a way that the mentoring agreement has been equally breached eventually by the editor, as detailed by the voluntary mentor User:Irondome, here [173] and here [174]. This arrangement resulted after a very long, unpleasant Incident for personal attacks, [175] while at the same time he was being indefinitely blocked for WP:OUTING, ultimately lifted after the administrator trusted the editor. He has lately blanked his personal page. [176]

Other editors involved are shown in the latest ANI. User:Iryna Harpy is now busy off wiki and has been notified, she may not turn up. I should also ping Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok, although they may consider they have said all they had to say by now.

I should ask for a termination to the account as the only solution to continuous disruption to the Wikipedia. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to tell that you've done a terrible job of explaining the problem. Could you please provide links demonstrating a current problem with this user's editing? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox and anyone else You are all welcome to carefully examine my editing history over the past couple of months here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Asilah1981. For the record, I have had three unsubstantiated sockpuppetry accusations launched by this editor against me linking me to random editors and have lost counts of his ANIs and attempts to get me permanently blocked, most recently a few days ago. I'm not particularly concerned by this fixation but if WP:BOOMERANG doesn't apply here, I don't know when it does. Asilah1981 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually did have a quick look at some of your recent edits, in an effort to understand the basis of this report, but didn't find any "smoking gun". From what I can tell, the idea here is that because your mentorship didn't work out, Iñaki LL thinks that automatically means you get blocked. While it's a shame that it didn't work out, WP:NOTBURO would seem to apply, you don't currently seem to be causing any real problems so there's no reason to block. Unless Iñaki LL can clarify why this is needed right now, I would advise them to just leave you alone and find soemthing more productive to do with their time. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It would help Iñaki LL's editing experience if they did not continually assume that a disagreement is a personal attack. A recent revert on their userpage has the edit summary "unconstructive, gratuituous personal attack" when it was clearly nothing of the sort. Saying does not make it so. Basically, the lesson here is not to try and use dramahboardz and edit summaries as weapons of war. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 08:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I do not have the loads of time Asilah1981 seems to collect all the evidence, or dedicate as he does to litigation and removal of content on the WP in key topics related to present-day Spanish politics and history. The agreement was an alternative to a block, enforcement applies when someone skips sanction. I was suggested I add the link of the previous ANI, where there is lots of information, and came here for enforcement. The editor in question adapts continually, brings up the same parroting (I was accused...), and it has had consequences if you check his history. Other times there were technicalities involved, and I talked previously about my disappointment with the use of Checkuser for sockpuppeting.

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Please be fair with me and the evidence, compare us both's history and collect all the data. That aggressive, gratuitous edit in my talk page [177] suggesting some kind of collusion with the Nazis (apart from being disgusting) came just after litigation with Asilah, in his former confrontational manners, when it could just have been posted on the talk page of the topic in question. It is funny that you say it was a disagreement, it was an attack, check also this with Asilah1981's similar citing of the Nazis.[178] or this [179] (here, "libel" as discussed in the previous ANI does not refer to anything legal). By the way, I consider the latest editor's tone in his talk page to be sarcastic [180], seeming to use all the mild tone he has learned lately, since he said he would have to "change his strategy" (cannot find the diff since he blanked his page at different stages), does not sound very reassuring. Now after being strongly recommended by Irondome to stay out of contentious topics,[181] now he breaches the agreement, he comes back with an attempt to remove an article he does not like from WP,[182] so not having consequences for personal attacks (see latest ANI link above) seems to be playing perfect for him. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that their behavior actually has improved, but for the wrong reason. Even if you are correct, it doesn't matter. Also, the diffs you are providing are old. Either provide evidence that there is a problem now that merits a block, or let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP is alluding to an earlier incident in which Asilah1981 sailed close to a permanent block as A) they had a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, B) indulged in personal attacks and were needlessly antagonistic. Mentorship was offered as an alternative to a block with a warning to abide by the terms of the mentorship or face a permanent block. The mentorship didn't work, Asilah basically did not keep their end of the bargain. See [183] where Irondome expressed his frustration. Since the withdrawal of the mentor we've not seen the same behaviour and I think this is basically tactical as Asilah has modified their tactics or is trying to stay under the radar. However, [184] is pretty typical of the old Asilah - he clearly isn't assuming good faith here. There isn't anything now that merits a block, I can understand Iñaki's frustration, but blocks are preventative rather than punative. I suggest WP:ROPE applies and when Asilah returns to the same behaviour is the time to bring up the previous discussion and failure of mentorship. WCM_email 12:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As Asilah1981's former mentor, all I can say here is that a call to sanction A in some way at this stage is unwise. It may well be that A has indeed modified his behaviours in the light of the events of dec-jan, and that the mentoring in some way focussed A's mind. (My withdrawal of mentorship was primarily due to the terms requiring liaison with myself being sloppily and poorly maintained, which in my view made the mechanics of the mentoring untenable). It may be for other reasons. Who knows? The major outcome is that Asilah's behaviour has become less of an issue than two months before. Unless Asilah's behaviours rapidly deteriorate in the future, I think we have nothing to discuss here, apart from revisiting old threads and living in the past. Let events take their course. Being an optimist, I would like to think that Asilah has indeed finally taken advice and the threat of severe sanctions seriously, and has acted accordingly on how they edit and interact. Irondome (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, let me disagree here, your outlook is overall a positive one for the WP as I see it, but sorry in this case it is doing no good. A quick look to his recent history says it all. (Going through this at the bottom of this edit) Re Wee Curry Monster, that is what I thought for a period, but does that really work out when the editor in question is left to continue for months or years? The thing is that in exchange of this imaginative alternative to a block, as I was fearing, and I think you WCM also were thinking so, the punished has been me (us, the community), in that the breach of sanction goes unpunished, and I happened to detect further irregular editing early on (below). He has also seen a free rein to get into the contentious topics he was discouraged from [185] and does what he wants, basically, while I am now spending hours involved in this negativity that two years ago was infrequent rather than common, and is dampening the spirits of not only me but droves of other productive editors.

Just a quick note on the link above brought up by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I perceived immediately the animosity in the intervention of that editor, out of the blue I should say, but decided to WP:LETITGO with a short talk on the article's talk page, in a way that now that editor's version is the one that remains in the article...

Some evidence of irregular editing by Asilah1981 (with his new milder tone) I happened to find lately, e.g. in Basque conflict: altering content of sources when nothing is said of the claimed statement in the reference, [186] just after ending the latest Incident in January. In Basque National Liberation Movement: adding POV/OR comment, [187] going in the talk page that “I will add the sources” (well, do it! WP:BURDEN, plus WP:FORUM), [188] when he is claiming to be an 'experienced' editor, for which he was quick to remove a notice to his talk page, added by WMC, off the top of my head (check history anyway). Well that does not look to me a proper experienced editor if his behaviour is anything to go by, after months of discussions, notices and warnings to him in article talk pages and his own talk page, as well as ANI Incidents. It reveals, as I pointed before, a total, recurrent inability to take responsibility for his own actions, and emphasis on POV.

Very recently in Bullfighting, he tests the patience of editors to the limit, recurrently, time and again, see here lately [189] [190] (when he was breaching agreement with the community and Irondome). I seems to thrive in litigation and discussions, and needs to bring attention. See also clear removal of accurate verified content with misleading edit summary in this article, [191] looking rather WP:JDLI, or breach of WP:CENSOR. Sorry this is far from proper editing after all. I should ping Cyphoidbomb and Joefromrandb who have an experience lately with Asilah1981 if they think they can also add something. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My only observation on the editor's recent behavior (at Bullfighting) was that they launched into an edit war after being encouraged to discuss their changes. "There is no real need to take to talk. It is not even a question for debate." Clearly it was a questino for debate, if there was another editor (Joefromrandb) who disagreed. Protecting the article got the editor onto the talk page for discussion and that seemed to go okay, although with a few bumps from both parties. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This complaint seems ridiculous to me. I found Cyphoidbomb editing an article and then locking it to be far worse than anything Asilah did. Whatever problems Asilah may have caused at the bullfighting article, the end result was a better article. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen, what I bring is evidence, I saw irregular editing by Asilah1981 (link I added above) and saw you were later reverting each other, with yourself claiming that you are getting tired of his editing ("inline text-citation" required, a perfect claim sticking to WP policies, you complained for his "trollish" behaviour...), so I refer to your edit summary. I do not know what the result of your discussion was to be honest. I also confirm the breach of WP:AGF (How many times?) pointed by WCM here [192]. I also add Asilah1981's latest edit here, with his customary nonconstructive editing, sticking to his personal political obsessions, like here,[193] where the editor shows a clear bias, skipping the main information by the Guardian ("the Basque separatist leader released after six years" [194], to obsessively emphasize his points (a convicted ex-ETA member, ETA this, ETA that, kidnapping, it really sounds like the Spanish government's obsession... everything is ETA...). This kind of behaviour also happened before in this very article when he tried to skip information on torture to Joseba Arregi (died). In fact, after his latest editing on Arnaldo Otegi, we still do not know that he was being released and was not a prisoner anymore, the main point is omitted (keeps calling him "a convicted"). Do not get me wrong, I am fine with adding details that may be relevant if they are in the source, but his editing is very questionable and contentious. And that just after he proposed the article for deletion after breach of agreement.

The only pedagogy I see effective here is an indefinite or incremental block as the only consistent, didactic response, and avoid further unnecessary litigation. Actions have consequences in whatever life situation, on and off WP. Other than that he is taking the EN WP for granted: he was given a constructive alternative to a block for a personal attack (calling me "a terrorist"), a sanction, an agreement among wikipedians, and he breached it, he breached the trust, got away with it, and nothing is happening but myself being in a peregrination to ask for enforcement and engaged in this kind of editing I do not like. The situation is turning embarrassing, even farcical, and not for me, but for the English Wikipedia. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line is he seems to be trying. You can't expect perfection overnight, or at all, for that matter. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I think I did not add the recent breach of AGF on top of that brought by WCM, see here [195] (I hope I did it right this time!) By the way, I reverted him in the Basque MLNV prisoners, for not adding edit summary in this sensitive article, a recommended practice of which he was informed in his talk page formerly at least two times by me and another editor. Regardless, keeps going his own way Iñaki LL (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a line and, for the most part, Asilah has avoided crossing it, but not always. Asilah has already been advised not to engage in canvassing yet s/he does exactly that here, asking for the support of another editor who has backed them up in the past in a controversial AFD. That's highly problematic behaviour. Valenciano (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A neutrally worded invitation to an AFD is not usually regarded as canvassing. However, this comment [196] is worrying, its rather evident that this user still doesn't get it. Still not enough to warrant a permnanent block yet. WCM_email 11:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Valenciano, WCM. Guys, come on, enough with this... Valenciano, I'm engaging with you positively in the AfD which I have the right to launch since there are serious concerns with that article. Maybe I shouldn't have (neutrally) asked Asqueladd for his opinion (he gave it to me privately on my talk page), WP:CANVASS is not clear on when/how you can do so. WCM note I'm backing off Gibraltar related issues and its not a strategy, I just understood how to behave on wikipedia, as you did in the past when you had similar behavioral problems. The Gib topic also bores me somewhat now. I also don't know where this idea of barring me from "sensitive" articles comes from. I edit articles where I find things are seriously wrong and need improvement. There are sensitive editors, clearly. Not sensitive articles. Also WCM, I know you and I don't get along but you are a brit and must see why I'm doing this AfD. Imagine a similar article about "Irish Liberation Movement prisoners" written in a similar way, you would not stand for it.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There were such articles Asilah, still are, but I don't edit based on nationalism. Your comment there speaks volumes; you edit based on your belief on what is right not what is neutral. WCM_email 12:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

WCMMan, had I written that you would have posted the diff everywhere as a personal attack (it's not for me, I have thicker skin I guess). I'm not a nationalist, I'm a Sephardic Jew from Northern Morocco who has lived many years in Spain and has developed a close connection to and deep understanding of that country, yes. I have political views, yes (surprisingly I don't really have them about what you and I fight about, whether you believe me or not). I have lived in the UK too and I also love your country a lot. But I also try to be NPOV as per my own understanding. Where I see manipulation or false information, I tend to get involved. Maybe you feel the same way about your own editing. No one holds the absolute truth and sometimes we end up fighting simply on the basis of our dislike for one another. Look at Inaki, he just stated today that individuals convicted of assassinating hundreds of civilians and injuring, maiming thousands more are political prisoners and victims of an oppressive state. There is no way I'm going to convince him otherwise. Its a belief which is core to his identity. Everyone has a subjective take on things and that is why edit conflicts exist on wikipedia and that is why political violence exists outside of wikipedia. Main thing is we stick to the rules, but I guess they are rules of engagement. The underlying discussions can't just go away. There is also a fair share of nutjobs on wikipedia. There is one Melroross guy who appears every now and then and I have no idea how to deal with him.... Anyways, I think I should stop editing as much. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you deliberately pinging me after being requested repeatedly to stop? That's a distinctly WP:DICKish move and unlikely to convince me you've reformed. WCM_email 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. No, not deliberate. I didn't know if you were following this page. I don't know why it bothers you so much, though. I wish people pinged me when discussing me.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

He takes now to alienating me after he tried that days/weeks ago with Kahastok and WCM (see Irondome's talk page), again calling me whatever dawns on his mind, basically spitting out his frustrations/rage on me, and spreading a profound negativity, First of all, I did not say anything he says above, it is perverse and revolting, appealing to the most irrational, visceral instincts, this is what I said, [197], the rest belongs to his elaboration.

Secondly, he has left a message in Spanish on my talk page, something he has done before and I urged him not to do so, since this is the EN WP and I perceive it as intimidating, whatever he may want to say. (In the MLNV prisoners talk page he made another personal attack against me an year ago, also in Spanish) He says that: I am being a nag, that he is trying to work and that every time he gets in the WP, "you [plural] are back to the issue again, give it up, it diverts my attention a lot". Absolute rubbish, if you take a quick look you will realize immediately that is is him meddling in all the controversial issues, adding POV/OR comments, etc. Lastly, he removed a comment by Valenciano he may have found uneasy with, so he just decided to remove it straight from the ongoing discussion/thread. [198] It is irregular in a WP article talk, and at first sight it looks totally irregular also in an Article for deletion discussion. Maybe someone can enlighten us.

The editor above is anything but collaborative in sensitive issues, where he usually engages, he seems to have an inability to take responsibility for his own actions and is overtly confrontational when someone view things differently. (May I add, in the Basque Autonomous Community, few people share Asilah's ultra-nationalist, confrontational views) The tone of his statements has changed, yes, he changed his strategy, as he pointed in his talk page in early January, now blanked. Still he keeps spreading a negative cloud over very sensitive issues that makes any collaboration extremely difficult. I think enough is enough, this editor is out of control. I should upheld my request to an indefinite block to avoid WP:Harassment (he is calling me whatever comes to his mind, in Spanish or English, obviously to keep me at bay), to prevent further escalations, and keep a smooth, positive editing. Failing that a topic ban in Gibraltar (if WCM finds that suitable) and Basque related, as well as "MLNV" prisoners and Basque conflict. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually for the record, (and this is my last intervention here), Iñaki LL you actually did say what I said above in this diff [199] where you write that these individuals convicted, for the most part, for murder are "just Basque prisoners victims of state repression. It may be ETA members, or it may be a journalist, like here, or Arnaldo Otegi, it is basically about Basques the state sees as a threat". We both know that the tens of thousands of Basques who were killed, injured, left widowed or orphaned, extorted, intimidated or forced to leave the Basque country for not sharing your political views would beg to differ. I know the Basque Country well and I know the reign of terror they imposed on its society, to the point that even today people feel uneasy discussing politics openly unless they belong to your end of the political spectrum. I do not have or want to accuse you of anything. You make your views patently clear. You have defined this collective of people convicted for political violence directed, for the most part, at Basque civil society as "victims of state repression". It doesn't offend me since I am neither Basque nor Spanish and no one in my family has been killed by or suffered at the hands of your so-called "victims". I am not leveling any personal attack or accusation against you, as you have been doing against me in these crazy ANIs which waste everyone's time. It just annoys me you want me eliminated from Wikipedia for disagreeing with your political stance and for opening an AfD on an article which has inherent WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues. I have to say, it is a very familiar pattern. Asilah1981 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not interested in your elaborations, your WP:BATTLEGROUND, and corrupt full-time for the WP. Bye. (Thanks for not pinging me) Iñaki LL (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Recommend closure of this thread. The complaint of the OP was vague, wordy, insufficient, and unsanctionable, and continued to be so. Both editors have had their say; both have been at least indirectly admonished; there is no current cause for overt sanction; and things are shaping up to be merely a content dispute(s), which should be dealt with via normal means (discussion and consensus on the talkpage of the relevant article[s], and/or WP:DR). Both editors should assume good faith, stop insulting each other, discuss content matters civilly and collaboratively on the talkpages of the article(s), stay off each other's usertalk pages, and avoid tracking the other's edits. No one should be edit-warring, and if they are, they should be reported to WP:ANEW. If all else fails, just avoid the other editor; let things work themselves out as they generally will on Wikipedia without our own interference or personal oversight. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen, this is my last intervention (sorry, I said that before) and I am fed up really. I may not be doing myself a favour by saying this, but at least I will be honest: I do not know if you have read anything or you have arrived on a satellite. If whatever I add here, you have made your decision with a quick overview, there is nothing I can do, no matter how many diffs I bring up here certifying irregular editing. Evidently the editor in question and me do not agree on POV, but my case has nothing to do with POV, it refers to a breach of sanction for a personal attack commited in order to pursue his goal of attempting a ban of an article, which he does with total safety. I respect his views, but he shows a complete inability to calmly discuss matters, and "treats" us with a visceral emotional rants where nothing, nothing substantial can be discussed.

My idea, besides my own views on each topic, is to guarantee that WP rules are complied at least in front my eyes, e.g. removal of verified content, with the same criteria that have been also applied to me. Assimilating me with this editor’s emotional rants where nothing can be discussed, his divisive/alienating attitude and his irregular editing is totally out of place, sets a very bad prededent, and what you are claiming about me and this reiterative infractor is just a guess for me (check the diffs, check personal histories). Although I do not want to run into this editor again, I foresee further escalation, not on content, but form. For Wikipedia purposes, the morale is clear for the infractor, breach a sanction and nothing happens. Very bad pedagogy for smooth, constructive WP editing, it is shameful really. (Thanks for not pinging me) Iñaki LL (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Again: vague, wordy, insufficient, and unsanctionable. The next time you file an ANI case against someone, it should be WP:DIFFs only, along with a brief (five- to ten-word) summary of each diff. You failed to do that in your OP or in the subsequent walls of text you have posted here, and now you are insulting my intelligence, and casting aspersions upon me, as well. Please re-read the very specific advice I posted above: [C]ontent disputes ... should be dealt with via normal means (discussion and consensus on the talkpage of the relevant article[s], and/or WP:DR). Both editors should assume good faith, stop insulting each other, discuss content matters civilly and collaboratively on the talkpages of the article(s), stay off each other's usertalk pages, and avoid tracking the other's edits. No one should be edit-warring, and if they are, they should be reported to WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

reporting myself (and Jytdog)

The following discussion is closed. 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 has posted many warnings to my talk page about my egregious actions [200] [201] [202] [203] Now either I am in the wrong (am I) or this looks like attempts at bullying (especially as another user has also made 3 reverts and got no warning).

I would point out I asked for the contested material to be disused, [204], and received no response from the reverting editor. Which is why I kept reverting, no attempt was made to discus the matter. I was just expected to accept it.

So I am asking, is Jytdog correct here? In addition is it acceptable to issue warnings to one editor but not another then they are both committing the same act?Slatersteven (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To add I do not feel intimidated, but do think it is an attempt at that. I fell as if I am not being held to the same standards as another editor based upon my perceived POV. I feel that there is massive bias in Jytdogs "enforcement" attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I should make this clear, this report is about me a Jytdog, not any other editor I am just pointing out Jyydogs (to me) perceived double standard. No user on the disputed pages breached 3RR, nor (as far as I can tell) intended to.Slatersteven (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know about any other editors, and it sounds like you are not really asking about that anyway, but I looked at the diffs that you provided. Aside from one warning about 3RR, everything else seems to be notifications of discretionary sanctions enacted by ArbCom. As the templates say, they are purely informational and do not imply any wrongdoing on your part. That said, it's a widespread problem that the templates keep getting interpreted by the editors who receive them as implying wrongdoing, so you are not alone in that, and it's not Jytdog's fault how the templates are written. In fact, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19#Please fix the wording of Template:Ds/alert, several editors including me discussed revising the wording with ArbCom, but the discussion didn't result in anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• I can see how by assuming bad faith you could see Jytdog's actions as "intimidation", but, similarly, I could easily assume bad faith of you and interpret this thread as an attempt at counter-intimidation. What would seem to be best is to edit according to the Discretionary Sanctions you have been informed of, avoid edit warring (the warning for which is often given before any edit warring has started, in order to avoid it happening), assume good faith of Jytdog while he does the same for you, and that the both of you discuss the disputed edits on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If you care to check I do not go beyond the 3rr rule, and again why did he not warn all uses who were close to edit warring?. Now maybe you are right and the templates are not threats, but two for the same (in effect), maybe three (after all there is not even any indication of what I did that was wrong, despite requests for said information? All given with no prior interaction over the matter in question, including no advice, just straight to the warnings? That is why this looks like bullying, I do not even know (in a couple of cases) what edit it is that was wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither warnings nor DS notifications are "threats", and you should have discussed with Jytdog first, before coming here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You're not reporting yourself, you're reporting Jytdog. That title does nothing except try to paint yourself as the victim. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I ask if I have done wrong, before I ask if Jytdog has. And I am still asking that, was Jytdog correct that my edits may have been actionable?.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This ANI was in response to this threat [205], I am trying to clear the air so I know where I stand. I need to know if I have a sword of Damocles hanging over my head.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, that was a warning and not a threat. If Jytdog had filed at AE without first warning you that they were considering doing so, I have no doubt that you would be complaining about not having any advanced notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Whooh, maybe I was wrong and this is about Jytdog, I have now seen this [206] the wording he now supports is the same as the edit of mine he undid here [207] claiming it was a breach of PSCI (which it now (apparently) is in accordance with). Can people see why I am not sure about whehter or not I am the one whose actions are at fault?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

ANd I have now found his self revert [208], but it does not alter the fact he just lept straight in with an accusation of breaching policy like he has done with every single template he has left on my talk page. Quite frankly (given the above) I am not even sure he bothers to read what is being written, he just leaps straight into "POV pusher mode, must be opposed" and makes accusations of breaches of policy, issues warnings and reverts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Without looking at anything except this section: Of the 10 signed contributions to this discussion (excluding this one), 7 are signed by you. May I suggest that you slow down a bit? Step back, look at the situation with a bit of distance, interpret the actions of all involved in the best possible way (per WP:AGF), then decide if you still want to pursue this, and if so, rewrite the request with a bit more structure and less breathlessness. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment : Looking at their talk page, that they had been blocked for 24 hours [209], for edit warring, and numerous concerns on their talk page, of edit warring, it reflects, that they are not taking concern of other editors work. I suggest, that they should learn to consider other editor concern, and stop edit warring.Junosoon (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  The guy has one block for edit warring in 9 years here, and you're painting him as an inveterate edit-warring? Get real. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, I kinda get where you're coming from here, insofar as Jytdog didn't just say that he would bring your actions to the community but specifically would get you topic banned. It's a little strident to my eyes. That said, on the whole I don't think your reaction is in proportion. It's not really a threat in the strict sense if the repercussion he warns of is to take the matter to a community space. It's not exactly best practice to take that adversarial "or else" language, in my opinion (tends to make others at the forum in question wonder about the accusing party's own impartiality and calm into question, I think), but it's not proscribed by policy either.

Also, here's the thing: Jytdog was willing to take this matter to AE, which puts his conduct in doing so right under ArbCom's nose. So either he is absolutely certain and correct that there was an infraction of a ruling in your conduct, or he would have caught the world's largest WP:BOOMERANG; in either event, you really have no complaint here, other than that Jydog maybe lost his cool a little and made his warning about the end of their patience a little more pointy than was strictly speaking necessary. There's no point in anyone here weighing in on the AE issue, because that's for ArbCom and clerks if it comes down to their needing to step-in. But this thread is a needless distraction at best. You're asking very directly now whether you or Jydog is the party in the wrong here and the answer is: you much more so than he. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I did lose my cool a bit. That is my bad and I apologize to all. btw I have drafted an AE case with regard to Slatersteven; am not ready to pull the trigger on that, at this time. But I was too harsh, for sure. Again, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will withdraw this then.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Norwalk et al.

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

---

Users involved:

• StephenTS42 (talk · contribs)
• Ɱ (talk · contribs)
• JJBers (talk · contribs)
• Ceoil (talk · contribs)

Pages involved:

• Norwalk, Connecticut and talk
• User talk:StephenTS42
• User talk:Ɱ and archive
• User talk:JJBers
• User talk:Ceoil
• File:NorwalkCTseal.jpg
• File:CityofNorwalkSeal.jpg

Ceoil, JJBers, and I collectively desire a block for StephenTS42. This is because that user has, over the course of several days, been very disruptive. The most egregious acts were: 1. Accusing me and JJBers of being sockpuppets based solely on our editing at the same time and our like viewpoints, 2. Copying user warnings we placed on his talk onto all three of our talk pages solely to be disruptive, and 3. Nominating my and JJBer's file for deletion on no valid grounds as retribution for my legitimate nomination of his file.

We have tried a great deal of reasoning and understanding, considering he is an inexperienced editor, however he has page ownership attitudes towards articles about Norwalk, and he repeatedly refuses consensus. He doesn't believe article precedents (other articles, especially FAs and GAs) stand as a precedent and thus as a passive consensus, even though Wikipedia:Consensus says that. He refuses to understand and thus constantly questions other basic fundamentals, like why symbols (flags, seals, etc.) used on articles should be the official municipal symbol. He fails to even read Wikipedia policies we clearly link to him. After the case of him accusing us of sockpuppeting and us providing solid evidence against it, he immediately put a resigned template on his userpage, blanked his talk, and left Wikipedia, only to continue his Norwalk edits a few days later, which, I should add, rarely fit Wikipedia's Manual of Style, rarely follow standards set by WP:USCITIES, and very rarely follows the standards set by other municipal articles. Please check page histories as well, there's plenty that has been removed from these pages for various reasons. Again, we desire a block, however if this disruption is not to that high of a degree, I would recommend other restrictive measures. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support As one of the users involved, this is really needed. —JJBers 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Further disruption was caused when StephenTS42 moved his user talk page to that of a non-existent user User talk:Nod12345. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Block for now None of the acts that were pointed to, (without links by the way), are not egregious enough for a block. It's not against any policy or guideline to add warnings to another users talk page and it's not against any policy to nominate files for deletion. It can come off as a bit rude however, to accuse other users of being sock puppets, buts its not a blockable offense. In the future, it might be wise to provide links to disruptive behavior, instead of just saying someone did something and ask other users to look through another users contributions. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any offense worth blocking.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly there's so much and it would be so messy to link individual diffs, and thus I provided links to the relevant pages above. Disruptive editing is enough for a block, and adding warnings and nominations solely to disrupt and troll are egregious acts. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But you still must demonstrate the disruption with diffs. Just saying 'this editor is disruptive, go look at the history of a half dozen pages' is not going to get a block and, since it is essentially an ANI complaint which has no chance of being resolved, is a bit disruptive itself. Please provide diffs demonstrating the disruption if you feel a block is necessary. Jbh ^Talk 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Diffs

Here you go!

Edit Warring Batch

[210] [211] [212]

Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut

[213]

User talk:Ɱ

[214] [215] [216]

Mine and Ceoil's talk pages

[217] [218] [219]

The files

[220] [221]

—JJBers 03:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• @JJBers: those are not diffs, they are links to old versions of the pages. Please see WP:Simple diff and link guide for instructions on how to make a diff. What you need to show are the individual edits or series of edits which demonstrate the disruption you are claiming. Jbh ^Talk 04:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

While these are good suggestions, see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. A less-then-technically-perfect presentation of the case should not prevent us from duly considering the substance, especially if the user is not a serial complainant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not a matter of bureaucracy it is a matter of people being able to identify the behavior which is being complained about without digging through a half dozen page histories. I note that the only uninvolved responses to the issue raised are two people asking for more focused information/diffs and one person commenting on the request, yet no one has cared to address the issues raised by the OP. Likely this is because no one wants to dig through stuff without specific diffs. Maybe I am wrong in this and lots of people will chime in but my best advice, if the OP wants a resolution, is to present edits illustrative of the issues they are complaining about. Having enough information presented in a complaint allows more uninvolved editors to address the problem which means there is a much better chance of the matter being resolved rather than it languishing, getting archived with no action, festering and then coming back as major drama in a couple of months. Jbh ^Talk 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

After skimming through the pages mentioned I see a couple of issues; StephenTS42 made a sock accusation without backing it up at WP:SPI (StephenTS42 don't do that) and StephenTS42's signature does not have links to their user & talk page (StephenTS42 please return your signature to its default or include wikilinks to your user and talk pages in your custom signature. If you do not know how to do that please see Wikipedia:Signatures or ask me on my talk page) Other than that everyone needs to step back, assume good faith and consider dispute resolution. This looks like a block request to get rid of an editor seen as troublesome but nothing jumps out as block worthy, maybe there is more but - ya'know, diffs... Jbh ^Talk 15:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• So instead of arguing about diffs or no diffs, it takes about three minutes to look at the page history and see that the user is basically openly edit warring to restore the image of the seal that they themselves uploaded ([222], [223], [224], [225]). The alternate image does in fact appear to be the official seal adopted by city ordinance, per the link provided, and even if it wasn't, whatever local consensus there is on the talk page is pretty clearly in favor of using it, rather this user's personal favorite. Their response on the article's talk that My argument is that there is no stipulation within Wikipedia that dictates the the use of official images, while apparently technically correct, misses the point that the applicable policy is WP:CON, and their accusations on the talk about others being WP:SOCKs is about as baseless as it is a blatant personal attack. Their insistence that others use the talk page, while themselves completely failing to engage in good faith discussion therein, only makes the whole thing worse.

So let's put this to bed, issue what is probably a lenient 24-72 hour block for edit warring, and give a well deserved link to WP:DR along with clear instructions that they are expected to use it, period. TimothyJosephWood 16:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not see the seal edit warring. It looks like they are still at it even after this ANI was opened. I have placed an edit warring warning on their talk page [226]. If they revert again WP:ANEW would probably be the best venue for a quick response. (added emphasis since the point seems to have been missed)

It looks like there is a bit of an edit war going on on the talk page as well [227], [228], [229], [230] with JJBers but there JJBers is warring to keep in a personal attack referring to Stephen as a troll. JJBers, stop it you can just as easily be blocked for personal attacks. Jbh ^Talk 16:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 20:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The matter of venue regarding ANI vs ANEW is definitely a WP:BUREAU issue. It works upward with regard to specificity (i.e., more general issues should be referred to ANI from ANV and ANEW, because they require broader community input), but it doesn't quite work downward, since this is a general purpose noticeboard able to deal with general issues. More to the point, the user has already been given ample warning, such as here, which was issued yesterday, before they decied to disregarded it and do what they want instead. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

And to be clear, what I mean when I say lenient is that I closed about a dozen other tabs with about a dozen other issues because, although the user hasn't technically broken 3RR, advancing this edit war has been their sole occupation, which is well enough to establish that their intention is simply revert until they win. TimothyJosephWood 17:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for further pointing out the user's incivility and failure to reason or follow rules. There are so many instances I failed to name all of them. I agree that a short block would be reasonable for edit warring, but considering all of the other disruption this user is causing, along with continued edits against the Five Pillars (indiscriminate collections on multiple articles, no civility, no heed for consensus, and not applying the principles and spirit of rules, instead fighting wording), I strongly recommend more significant action. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I self-reverted the edit of the troll pic. I'm going to leave as is, but reverting other people's talkpage comments is against the rules, at least I believe so. —JJBers 19:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Great, my most recent edit, linked and supported by policy, was reverted by StephenTS42 with the explanation Here we go again! You lost your foolish insane quest yet you start again. Go jump in a lake!!!. If this isn't disruptive and trolling, I don't know what is. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've pretty much said my opinion on the matter already. I don't think you can justify an extended block on an account that's managed to keep a clean block log since 2009, but I do think you can justify a block, given their fairly clear ownership issues. Frankly, this revert is pretty clear evidence that they're simply knee-jerk reverting without regard to content, since they are actually reverting in someone calling them a troll, which they've edit warred out thus far. That they're active, and would rather revert than comment on this thread makes it a tad bit worse. Since no individual admin seems to want to take the lead on this, I'll defer to the community. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose 72 hour block

• Support 72 hour block for incivility and edit warring, with clear instructions on how to utilize the dispute resolution process, and a clear warning that doing so is not recommended, but required. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Reasonable introductory measures for continually disruptive user. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support agreeing with the whole discussion above.—JJBers 21:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Miniapolis 00:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• All due respect to User:Miniapolis, but probably the more important part of this was not the block itself, but the link to WP:DR and the explanation that they are expected to use it. TimothyJosephWood 00:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I doubt he'll begin to follow user recommendations or start reading/following policies, but nevertheless I also recommend this. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Any editor can recommend WP:DR; it has no more weight coming from an admin. Miniapolis 14:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

it has no more weight coming from an admin - I think many especially new editors would disagree with you on that. But I have left a comment to that effect on their talk, and watchlisted both their talk and the article. So I suppose we'll see how things go in a couple of days. TimothyJosephWood 15:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

More eyes needed

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

---

More eyes needed for Wittgenstein123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): plenty of warnings, he just deletes them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

He deleted the above too. -- Hoary (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Devencci2005 – disruptive editing, part 3

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

---

• Devencci2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previously reported here twice and blocked each time for not using timestamps when updating statistics, Devencci2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just doesn't seem give a s*** while also using transfermarkt as a source which is considered unreliable here as they have been told repeatedly. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User constantly adds unsourced information to articles and his changes are usually reverted. He has never posted on a talk page and doesn't use edit summaries. Since he has made no reaction at all to two previous blocks, I suggest that an indef is the obvious next step. EdJohnston (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked. Any admin may lift this if they are convinced the user will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Good job. Case closed. SportsLair (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Horizonlove

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

---

It is with a great deal of reluctance that I have to report the editor User:Horizonlove to the administrators. They have done great work on articles on black entertainers and musicians, an aspect that is greatly under represented here. Unfortunately, the attitude of the editor towards others has been very argumentative and combative over the past three months. Most recently here where the editor engaged in an edit war and failed to reach consensus with @Rebbing:. In addition, they falsely accused the editor @Jennica: of Wikihounding here. On other occasions has taken a very argumentative tone without assuming any WP:GOODFAITH towards other editors, such as here towards @Jax 0677:. Last month the editor was asked by @Magnolia677: to provide reliable references for the Soul II Soul page and behaved very dismissive (edit summary: reply to this stupidity) towards an experienced editor. He subsequently accused the same editor of Wikihounding here. In December, the editor had a conflict with @TheMagnificentist: on the Kym Mazelle article that led this this WP:3RR report (without sanction). Following the editor indicated that 'I'm here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you'. This discussion was halted after an intervention from the admin @Anachronist:. Today, after the issues on the Talk page of the Deliverance (Joi Cardwell album) I left this notice in that hope that the editor would engage more constructively with others. Instead I was accused of 'jumping in and taking sides'. I hope that one of the administrators can clearly outline policy to the editor and explain that levelling unwarranted accusations towards others and goes in against us striving to reach consensus. I sincerely hope that the editor will continue in his work and is not discouraged by this report. Karst (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This is very ridicious. "Unfortunately, the attitude of the editor towards others has been very argumentative and combative over the past three months." I have always been open to conversation with editors and have discussed many topics with them. To put forth what looks like a lot of bad history is very unfair and inappropriate. I never accused of User:Rebbing of Wikihounding, I accused User:Jennica of Wikihounding because every edit that I made was followed by him/her. Evidence of that are these pages: [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], and on a discussion [236] where I did not name her or anything related but she commented in after I open the discussion. Wikihounding is defined as 'the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.' This is how I felt when she kept coming out of nowhere and making edits behind me. She may have edited other pages, which is okay, but there were specifics edits that were only made after I edited on said-pages.

To address the situation with User:Jax 0677, I did assume good faith at first. When I began editing the Joi Cardwell pages, he soon began creating blank pages for the purpose of redirecting them elsewhere. The history logs of these pages [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], support that. I talked to him on his talk page here and asked him to stop doing that. It is very misleading for to reader. However, he continued to create and redirect pages. So I opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Redirect talk page and discussed it. The consensus was that it was a "terrible practice" and User:Plantdrew talk to Jax 0677 on his talk page and told him so here.

"Last month the editor was asked by @Magnolia677: to provide reliable references for the Soul II Soul page and behaved very dismissive" is a lie. User:Magnolia677 acted very combative and dismissive towards me. After I retrieved several sources and information for the page, he kept removing information from the page without discussing it or adding a "needs verfication/citation tag" as editors are encouraged to do. And in my free opinion, the process was very stupid because he kept asking for source after source; and challenging each thing that I added. The page's history log supports that. When I started editing Kym Mazelle, a page that User:TheMagnificentist has edited several times, he behaved in a way that asserted himself as owner of the page. I talked to him on his page here to address the situation. User:Anachronist evaluated the situation and decided that TheMagnificentist behaved inappropriately which almost resulted in a block of TheMagnificentist. Also note that TheMagnificentist has been blocked before.

"Today, after the issues on the Talk page of the Deliverance (Joi Cardwell album) I left this notice in that hope that the editor would engage more constructively with others." is strange to say because I don't understand what would have lead Karst there to begin with considering that he/her had no visible interactions with those users. "Instead I was accused of 'jumping in and taking sides'" would be a very accurate statement because Karst did not evaluate the situation. He immediately came to me as if I was the bad guy and very appropriately to him on my talk page. I have not violated any rules or policies of Wikipedia. Time after time, I have acted in good faith, been productive, retrieved resources, talked out disagreement, and discussed whatever situations I did not understand on the appropriate talk pages. To say "I hope that one of the administrators can clearly outline policy to the editor and explain that levelling unwarranted accusations towards others and goes in against us striving to reach consensus" is contradiction in itself because the Wikipedia policy was made to guide us editors as well as protect us from the verbal attacks and dismissive behavior of other editors, which time and time again I followed. The history is all there to support what I have said. Horizonlove (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note - Also when this is over and done, I would request that users Magnolia677 and Karst be somehow banned or restricted from interacting with me. While I am aware that editors are free to edit whichever pages they choose, whenever these editors get involved with something that involves me, it creates a problem that is impossible to settle with them because they (specifically Magnolia677) are very dismissive as seen here. [That wasn't first time, just the most recent] It is very discouraging to continue editing and have your contributions challenged even after you have added sources, but still they are labeled with the undeserving { BLP sources } and { refimprove } tags. Horizonlove (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Horizonlove apologized to me but just above accused me again of "following their every edit" which is untrue. I saw that they were adding songwriting credits to Personnel sections on album pages so I checked a few of their other edits to see if they were doing it. They created a new album page, which popped up in this new albums page, which I check nightly. After editing on a page they created, Horizonlove took to my talk page again to accuse me of following/hounding them. I appreciated the apology but by their comments above, they've practically rescinded on that apology, apparently, since they still believe I was hounding them. They are taking the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and twisting them to fit their opinions. Horizonlove also does not seem to read what I type to them because I told them I follow the album style talk page - yet they still seem to think I am following them. Horizonlove clearly didn't check my contribution history because I was not targeting them. I am certainly allowed to check other's contribution history and if you can't handle the fact that people can, maybe wikipedia isn't the site for you. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Jennica Please read carefully. It's outlined. I said, "This is how I felt when she kept coming out of nowhere and making edits behind me. She may have edited other pages, which is okay, but there were specifics edits that were only made after I edited on said-pages." If you feel the apology was not genuine, you are free to feel that way. I can't control how you feel. If I did not mean the apology, I would have never posted it on your talk page, even after you dismissed me as "I don't really wish to discuss this since I didn't do anything wrong." But right after that, you said to me, "I checked your edits after I saw you are apparently obsessed with listing songwriters in Personnel sections." How some of people feel may not be how you feel. An clear example of that was when you kept removing songwriters in Personnel sections, even though you felt it was redundant and I did not. And honestly, I still do not think it is redundant.

Personally, I don't feel the need to check other people's edits, nor do I have time. I think that it is constant violation to keep looking at people's contributions and following what they did. "They are taking the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and twisting them to fit their opinions." is a lie because I have never done that and you know that. After I accused you [Jennica] of hounding, I gave you a quote description of Wikihounding which I felt you were doing. And even then, I was very polite to you when I approached you and said, "Please stop following me! Thank you". Horizonlove (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You said I was following "every edit" you made. It is simply not true and I resent being accused of it in the first place. I already explained the redundancies with the songwriting thing. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The point was to address the accusations of Karst when s/he said, "they falsely accused the editor @Jennica: of Wikihounding here." I address why I accused you of Wikihounding. I'm not trying to be rude, please read more carefully. I have always chosen my words carefully, despite a few typos that we are all entitled to like when Karst posted that I said "I'm here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you". The intended comment was "I'm [not] here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you" as the tone of the conversation follows. Horizonlove (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support any sanctions visited upon Horizon. Clear and egregious battleground behavior. The conversation on Jennica's talk page was especially disgusting; when an editor tells you not to post on their talk page, you don't immediately post there again multiple times. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note - The editor does not own the talk page even if it under their name. Anyone is still free to communicate with the editor to reach a consensus or make a request. It's funny how you say "especially disgusting" when time and time again I was polite with "Please" and "thank you", and was willing to open a discussion with Jennica despite being dismissed. Or did you miss that part? Frankly, you do not know what you are talking about and I mean that very politely. You just started editing in August 2016 and you don't why we are here now. Horizonlove (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[246] "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to)."

Your comments were neither helpful, administrator attention, nor a project notice or communication. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Comment - Key word being usual, it does not say prohibited or not allowed. Once again and very politely, you don't know what you are talking about. "Your comments were neither helpful..." is strange to say because it was a discussion, not a debate. Later in conversation, resolution did happen and we were moving forward after we had a discussion. If that's not helpful, then kindly give me your description of helpful and communication. Horizonlove (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - do note (if it means anything) that Jennica has a custom watchlist of several users (including me) here. - TheMagnificentist 12:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That is perfectly normal for the gnomish work that Jennica does. Quite a few people (including myself) watch your edits for reasons that are not really relevant to this ANI. Karst (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - @TheMagnificentist: - Hi. I can't remember why I put you on there. I honestly didn't know this list was public. I removed you but it was most likely because of gnomish reasons. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note - I can't see Jennica's watchlist. I also can not verify that what s/he said is true, not that I'm calling them a liar. I'm stating what lined up with my own edits. @Karst: I've noticed that you and I'm assuming the other person is Magnolia677 watch my edits. And I've noticed that each time one of you come back, it creates a unreasonable problem that I try to solve involving one of you. It's almost like bullying because I am constantly challenged by one of you as with the Kym Mazelle page. And even when I move on because there is no reasoning with both of you, you will come to the next page over time. If this is your way of helping, please considering who you are helping and how does it come across. Most you and/or Magnolia677 argue about is sources. But when they are provided, you find something else to challenge. The history supports that. Horizonlove (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

When an issue is raised, the point is to engage with the other editors to resolve the issue. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Unfortunately, the comments in this report have indicated that you continue to harbour a battleground mentality. I strongly suggest you follow the advice that @JaconaFrere: indicated on your Talk page and refrain from calling other editors 'immature' as you did here. Karst (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Karst - "Wikipedia is a collaborative effort." Obviously I know that because I engaged in conversation with editors throughout history. "Unfortunately, the comments on this report have indicated that you continue to harbour a battleground mentality." One person doesn't know what they are talking about as we've never engaged in any prior communication. You and Magnolia677 are working as team against me, so that's bias. And Jennica only commented in response to my comment which was in response to your accusations. "I strongly suggest you follow the advice that JaconaFrere indicated on your Talk page and refrain from calling other editors 'immature' as you did". If certain editors behaved nicely and helped, instead of constantly reverting without discussing a revert, I would call them immature. After all, that is what an article's talk page is there for. But none of them bothered to discuss (before reverting or the reasons for wanting to revert) on the said articles' talk pages. That part is very true and you know that. Horizonlove (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The main issue here is how you engage in the converations with others and treat these interactions as a battleground. The aim of a discussion on the Talk page is to reach consensus, not to claim ownership, as you did on the Kym Mazelle page. Here you noted 'I would appreciate if information like this would not be abrutly removed without discussing it further'. I posted a reply to that post, explaining the issues with the article on 22 December. Instead of discussing the issues on the Taslk page you continued to edit the page in the first week of January that resulted in a number of reverts. And this is one specific example. I have nothing further to add in light of the retirement notice. I will leave this now for an admin to decide on the course of action here. Karst (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - WRT {{Joi Cardwell}}, I recommended that Horizonlove write the articles before he puts them in the navbox, since at the time, some of the articles at had nothing to do with Cardwell. Even now, some of the articles are redirects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - "I recommended that Horizonlove write the articles before he puts them in the navbox". I was trying to write the articles but you kept reverting before I could finish. "Even now, some of the articles are redirects." That is very true because you created blank pages [some of which are still blank] and put redirect tags on them. The process of it was pointless to create false pages especially when nothing was linking there as I discussed here. It's a process that you are still doing. I can't write the pages if I have to keep going back to fix reverts. Horizonlove (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment - Horizonlove, if you're having trouble with others reverting your page while you're trying to edit, consider using the sandbox instead of making repeated edits to the article, you can get everything the way you want it and edit only one time. Jacona (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Reply - @JaconaFrere:, it doesn't matter anymore. I've retired from editing and that edit/mention was very inappropriately "thanked" by @Magnolia677:. Now if you can't consider that to be extremely rude, then something is really wrong here. Horizonlove (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Sure, that's rude - but not unusual for Wikipedia or for many other walks of life. If you're going to turn tail and run whenever you're treated rudely, people will learn that their bad behavior works for them and you can expect much, much more of the same. But from a practical standpoint, you've been rude yourself, when you've been corrected you have shown an unwillingness to learn policy and discussed issues, you have rather lashed out in anger and made articles into battlegrounds. Perhaps in time you'll learn more on how to work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. We could use constructive help. Jacona (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• NB - This constitutes a personal attack? Karst (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No. Kleuske (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Move Human like you activity from User:176.33.80.23

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

---

In the last hour 176.33.80.23 (talk · contribs) re-instating edits by sock-puppet Wikisiki999 (talk · contribs). Compare the contributions, and note previous Human like you edits on those pages. Perhaps an IP block? Batternut (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Obvious sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by 92slim

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

---

Thoroughly unwarranted personal attack by User:92slim in the edit summary here. He's been blocked for such at least a couple of times before, most recently a couple of months ago. Largoplazo (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that after the block the block notice was removed and the blocking administrator was called a buthurt dickhead. I'm curious if that should be grounds to increase the block since that behaviour was not even remotely acceptable.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging blocking admin Ad Orientem. I myself have wondered the same thing. SkyWarrior 04:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I get the sense that the user is taking communication (including about this very discussion) via templates as a personal affront. Anyway, I left the user a note about maintaining civility. El_C 04:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Block extended to 1 month with talk page editing privileges revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. 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:OrangeSkunk has garnered quite a trail of questionable edits, including [247], [248], [249], and [250]. They clearly do not plan on participating in a clear, concise manner; which is necessary on Wikipedia. Recommend a block based on WP:NOTHERE. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 11:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Funny Boomer Vial, because I was in the middle of making an ANI report for the same exact situation... Here is some more context of what they've been doing...

They've been making WP:AIV reports like this, this and this. Furthermore, they've been "warning" users (when they're already blocked, apparently) like this and this and saying that they "hate" editors, seen here. They've also been recording vandals that they find in a list that can be seen at User:OrangeSkunk/False Edits, calling them "false editors".

I'm thinking that this is a cut and clear competence issue, but I am not sure how to deal with this, but it would be good if an admin could look into this further. Thanks. 172.58.41.54 (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Poor English, and perhaps limited competence, but not WP:NOTHERE as mainspace edits show positive intentions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I've also came across this, this and... "Your edits are huggle. (HG)"...? 172.58.41.54 (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I think it's a competence issue, and possibly a very young person. Anyone feel like offering some help and guidance? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BITE, I wrote the following on that editor's talk page: "You've made some edits that don't make sense. This has been noticed by several people. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, everything you do is checked by others. If you make too many mistakes at first, people assume you're not here to help, and you can be shut out. This isn't like a blog or a forum; this place has tough standards. Please, click on the "Visit the Teahouse" button above, and talk to people to find out how this place works. Thanks." They seemed confused, not hostile, and hammering on them with warning templates wasn't helping. John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm really starting to think this is not the right place for this user based off this AIV report: [251]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: They're behavior hasn't improved one bit. Another editor gave them a strong warning/some advice, which was prior to the AIV report that RickinBaltimore just linked above. Would now recommend an indefinite WP:CIR block. This is only getting worse. Also may I ask why they're using the WP:HUGGLE tag in their reports...? 172.58.32.84 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They just did this, in which Widr reverted. 172.56.39.33 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And that's enough for me. Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. If it's a kid, I'd welcome them back in a few years when they mature enough to work with the project. If it's someone doing this to be a nuisance, then enough is enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I can't see any realistic alternative right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Paid editor moving own drafts to mainspace

Early today I wrote at User talk:Janweh64 "Wikipedia, for reasons that I just can't understand, tolerates paid/COI editing in draft space. But where exactly do we say that paid editors can then freely move their own drafts into mainspace? As a paid editor, "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". But by creating a draft and then moving it yourself, you are effectively doing exactly that. I've moved Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), Himanshu Khagta, Legs4Africa, Miss Tara and KDDL Limited back to draft space. If and when you think they are ready to be included in this encyclopaedia, please submit them in the normal way."

Janweh64 had written those pages in draft space, with an apparently proper declaration of paid COI, but then instead of submitting them for review, just went ahead and moved them. The editor has not troubled to reply to my post (and indeed, is under no obligation to do so), but since moved two of those five drafts, Miss Tara and KDDL Limited, back to mainspace. While I don't see that any hard-and-fast rule (that I know of, anyway) has been broken, this appears to be highly inappropriate behaviour for a paid editor. At the very least, I suggest moving those pages to draft space for now. If others agree that the behaviour is inappropriate, a page move ban might be considered. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It is my belief that I have not violated any policy as stated above. However, moving articles to draft space is a move to circumvent the readily available avenue for addressing this issue which is to nominate such pages for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers has essentially achieved their goal of deleting these articles without any consensus or input from other editors. I believe the inappropriate behavior is theirs. I have made every effort to follow the policies.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You should not move articles into mainspace when you have a COI. You should request review as the template allows for. You absolutely should not move an article back to mainspace after it's been moved back to Draft. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run, charity-funded project. Writing for profit is already evil. Overriding the judgment of others like that? It will just get you banninated. Guy (Help!)

Guy, can you please explain what you mean. Where do I place said template when the page does not exist.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, I get it now. Can you please return the articles to draft space so I may request the edits on the draft talk pages so that a volunteer may evaluate them. I am sure that they are notable per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2, WP:LISTED and WP:ORGDEPTH. They do not qualify for speedy deletion per WP:G11.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that the policy? Is it forbidden for a paid editor to move an article from draft to article space? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is ever forbidden here, but it's a terrible idea, especially for the subject - being identified as a person or firm that paid to get an article on Wikipedia is not exactly a badge of honour. I'm happy that you now get it and have moved them back to Draft. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Guy, the discussion below leads me to believe I was perfectly within my rights. I only meant I understand what you mean. I would rather wait for the outcome of this discussion. As for badge of dishonour, the list of subjects that employ paid editors is extensive. Clarification: you have first deleted then you have moved them to draft after (I assume) reading discussion below. I am of the belief that a move to draft is not necessary and was just capitulating per your warnings.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:COI - content should be left to people without a conflict. Fine to create a draft, fine to request review and posting to mainspace, bad idea to move to mainspace yourself, terrible, terrible idea to edit-war back into mainspace after it's moved back to daft. That's not especially controversial I think. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, that's a guideline, not a policy. Second, it does not say that editing is forbidden. The most I saw was that editors "should" not edit, but I can't find a policy that says it's forbidden to move an article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Accusation of edit war maybe premature. I only reverted the move once because I believed it was inappropriate as I stated above.

WP:COI says "generally advised not to edit affected articles directly." This is clearly intentionally left ambiguous.

WP:COI - no where states "content should be left to people without a conflict." It also has no mention of "posting to mainspace" therefore posting to mainspace is simply an edit which is only discouraged. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, AFAIK there is no policy or guideline that forbids a paid editor from moving an article from draft to article space. - GB fan 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

GB fan, thanks, so we can then close this thread. The OP reverted a valid move and the paid editor rightly (or wrongly) moved it back. Nothing to see here other than some COI warriors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not to stop the process but the articles in question have now been inappropriately deleted through WP:CSD by Guy.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That was a piss-poor action. I would ask an admin to undelete. This is an admin action by an involved administrator and is not cool at all, especially for someone throwing guidelines around. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to add that I have no idea if the articles in question are good or should indeed be deleted, but it reeks of INVOLVED for an admin in this thread to do the deletion. There is no urgency to have an article deleted that another admin can't do the job. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) is at Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), Himanshu Khagta is at Draft:Himanshu Khagta, Legs4Africa was deleted, Miss Tara was deleted and KDDL Limited was deleted. - GB fan 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I stopped short of moving Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) and Draft:Himanshu Khagta back because I believe Justlettersandnumbers action in regards to those articles is appropriate. There is not enough to prove notability as I state in my user page. They should probably stay there till notability can be better established.

The other three though I have nominated for undeletion: here—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:COI is a guideline, and as it says in the Subcat guideline template transcluded to the top of our guideline pages: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It does represent consensus, and should be followed unless there is a valid reason not to. Ignore it at your own peril. Mojoworker (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So, Sir Joseph, you appear to be trying to suggest that JzG should not have posted here after deleting those articles. Why not? Isn't it rather normal for an admin to explain an action after making it? What exactly do you see as "piss-poor"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that what I wrote? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph ought to refresh his understanding of what WP:INVOLVED means. In particular, an admin is not involved when their actions have been administrative and not as an editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh and "very strongly discouraged" is about as close as the Wikiworld gets to "don't do this". What it means is that most editors wanted to forbid it but enough people objected that a compromise was reached. What it should be read as is "You're going to get into a heap of hurt it you do this." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Examples of Wikiworld "don't do this": WP:HARASS, WP:PERSONAL, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:VANDAL.... —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk)

The articles have been undeleted and Guy's actions or involvement is besides the point. The questions are simple:

1. Is a paid editor not permitted to move an article from draft to mainspace?
2. Is a paid editor required to submit articles for review before moving to them to mainspace?

All assuming off-course that paid COI was properly declared as I did. I would like the answers to these questions as much as anyone.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The community has repeatedly chosen not to ban paid editing. Accordingly, a paid editor is allowed to create articles and move them into mainspace. As I gather you know, the proviso to that is the need for full and public disclosure of your relationship with the client.

With that said, while it is allowed, if very strongly discouraged, you run into other problems. Most paid jobs I've seen have tended to be for articles that are marginal at best, and even good editors, faced with pay if they create it and none of they don't, tend to be poor judges as to the viability of the content. Having someone independent decide if it should be moved to mainspace allows that bit of distance which helps everyone - Wikipedia is more likely to get a viable article, the paid editor is less likely to have to explain why the article has been heavily tagged and sent to AfD as soon as it was created, and the client is more likely to get an article that stays. The other issue is simply practicality - if you are doing something controversial (and paid editing remains controversial), it is best to stay as far on the right side of things as possible. By not editing it directly, or not moving it to mainspace, and having independent editors help, you might still fail to get the article up, but you'll avoid most of the ire that you can provoke by ignoring the guidelines. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A few minutes ago I moved Draft:Legs4Africa, one of the drafts discussed above, to mainspace. It seems tolerably good as is. Please don't take this to mean that I think it was a good idea for its creator to do the same thing a little earlier, or that anyone was wrong to move it back. I chose this particular draft rather arbitrarily. I haven't looked at the others and I do not intend to do so: I hope that some other editors will look at them and judge them on their merits. -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hoary, I did. (Janweh64), I hope you will take a look at those individual edits, not because I'm necessarily right about them, but because I think I have a point: excessive detail and references that are really links to the company website and to (promotional) videos are hallmarks of COI editing. When all that stuff is stripped (and the article has now lost half of its size), what we have left is six newspaper articles, which in the current atmosphere is enough to pass notability guidelines, I suppose. Anyway, I think the article is more encyclopedic now, though your boss may like it less; still, I think I did you a service, and you can transfer my fee to my off-shore Wikipedia account. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Has a paid editor the right to move their drafts to mainspace? Technically, yes, although it is a very bad idea. Has any other editor the right to move these pages then back to draft space? Yes, there is no policy forbidding this either (and lots of reasons to support this). To avoid such a cycle, it would be much, much better if Janweh64 stopped moving his pages to the mainspace and submitted them for review instead. Fram (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• It might not be strictly forbidden by policy, but the content of those drafts make it pretty obvious why review is an extremely necessary thing in these cases. Legs4Africa is actually pretty decent. Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), on the other hand... An article about the holder of the world record for the longest handshake? Really? Sourced to blogs, self-promotion platforms, LinkedIn and business database entries? I'm not seeing it. Draft:Himanshu Khagta is, in a way, worse, because it appears to be sourced to well-known reliable sources... but those articles are not about him, they just use his photography. Buying a photograph from a stock images collection does not constitute significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Some of those articles are clearly not ready for article space and the fact that this editor chose to move them there shows that his COI has clouded his judgement. GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I invite you to examine the statements I made on my user page long before this discussion began. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies:As far as I know, references to the company website are permitted as per WP:SELFPUB. A close inspection will reveal conformation bias in anything. And (at the risk of poking the bear) your actions are slightly WP:POINTy behavior as OP has taken your edits as license to continue by removing everything from the infobox. Two editors have found the article acceptable before you. What would happen if we chose an article you created and put it under a microscope. Or even better what would happen if we chose another article I created but have no COI (and there are a few). Where does COI end and simple incompetence begin?

On the contrary, my "boss" would be just as happy. His only concern is the lack of understanding in the absolute dominance Wikipedia has. You fail to realize the amount of power you have and how easily large corporations can influence your decisions, not by direction but sheer size and media influence. Please consider the examples: Apple Inc. reference section which has (94 out of 429) references to apple.com with a couple press releases and endless product pages, FA-articles Ace Books (8 out of 55), BAE Systems (37 out of 199, includes press releases), Holden (6 out of 179, 3 press releases), Cracker Barrel (9 out of 89, 5 press releases) and you can check the rest yourself. What you have demonstrated is my sheer admiration of Legs4Africa!

Can we please end this before someone accuses me of WP:PAYTALK or I am to be flogged and paraded some more? Consesus is clear. I am not strictly forbidden to move articles to mainspace. I am strongly discourage from doing so and very strongly encouraged to use a review process.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Janweh64, SELFPUB doesn't say we can stick in a ton of links to the website of the subject of the article. It allows for verification, not for promotion. If facts are supported by real sources (reliable, secondary ones) a self-reference is unnecessary, and if a self-reference is the only available reference, one should ask whether that information is necessary in an encyclopedic article in the first place if no one else has noticed it. I have not investigated all articles on Wikipedia, but I'm working on it, and if you peruse my edit history you will see that I am quite consistent in this, or at least I try to be. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And to the question by Mojoworker: Why do I even ignore this guideline instead of the review processes available? Please notice the 8 months backlog for request edits most of which are nonsense no one has bothered to decline? And Hoary, thank you! —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Janweh64, have you suggested to your clients that they should read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Are you suggesting that I should tell my current client Geronimo Trail National Scenic Byway that an article about them will be detrimental to their mission.[252] —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing says. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't hurt. I will send them the link.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this from a COI content perspective, we have:

• Draft:Matt_Holmes_(entrepreneur) "He is one of the two current world record holders for the longest handshake." Notability seems marginal.
• Legs4Africa is about a charity which has coverage in the Guardian, BBC News, and the London Daily Mirror, indicating reasonable notability.
• Draft:Himanshu Khagta is about a photographer who follows others around while they do something notable, or semi-notable. One "attempted to set the Limca World Record for the longest Himalayan expedition on a tractor". He's working on two books of pictures. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON for notability.
• Draft:Miss Tara is about a DJ. The usual standards at WP:MUSIC should be applied.
• Draft:KDDL Limited is about a company in India which makes watch parts. Notability may be there per WP:CORP, but the article reads like a corporate brochure.

Right now, the only article of the group that's in mainspace is the one which seems to belong there. So no COI article repair or deletion activity seems necessary at this time. John Nagle (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) has been deleted with my agreement
• Draft:Himanshu Khagta's notability is I admit too soon
• Draft:Miss Tara: qualifies under criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC.
• Draft:KDDL Limited: I have stripped this article leaving only a perfect example of WP:Systemic bias.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Persistent additions of uncited ethnicity categories by IP

5.69.225.209 has been adding ethnicity categories to BLP articles in which there is no claim of ethnicity.--TM 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Namiba take a look at the articles photo on the cited websites as proof of ethnicity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.225.209 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Photos are not sources. If you cannot prove that someone is of a certain ancestry with written sources, don't include those categories. It is very disruptive and violates WP:BLP and WP:CAT.--TM 00:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Chrissy comments here

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

---

Discussion of DrChrissy's comment to the above thread re: Slatersteven and Jytdog

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

---

• Comment I have just had a comment here reverted - under what PaGs was this revert made? DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• @DrChrissy: Do you seriously think it's wise to comment in this section when you have a two-way interaction ban with Jytdog? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment related to Slatersteven. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Who was reporting Jytdog. Give your head a shake. If someone asked for a block over this, they would have my support. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The original title was "reporting myself". DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose block for DocChrissy breaking his interaction ban. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm about to file an AE request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Iffy. Technically the wording at WP:IBAN doesnt outright prohibit his original post as it wasnt in reference to Jytdog. Unless you consider it to be a violation of bullet point 3 by oblique means. Suggest a heavy trouting and hat this with a statement that it is a very bad idea to comment in a ANI complaint that is explicitly named after someone you are in an interaction ban with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not iffy at all. Regardless of what the title of the thread originally was, the thread was about Slatersteven's interactions with Jytdog - indeed the first two words of the thread are "User:Jytdog". DrChrissy is banned from discussing Jytdog in any way, directly or indirectly, so their comments here are quite clearly a violation of that ban, and it seems clear thet DrC is keeping a close watch on Jytdog, which is precisely the opposite of the effect an Interaction Ban is supposed to have.

DrChrissy had his two topic bans expanded because of his tendency to poke at their borders, and received an AE block for making a valueless report on another editor. And then there was this AN report, where DrChrissy managed to skate by without being blocked. DrChrissy does not seem capable of working within their sanctions and not exploring their boundaries. They should most certainly be blocked for their comments here, and some considerations ought to be given to whether DrChrissy is able to work under our policies. (And, yes, DrChrissy, I've been blocked a number of times for edit warring, which is the next thing you're going to bring up, but such tit-for-tat is not relevant here, where the topic is your behavior, and not mine.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DrChrissy. I tried to remove the initial post without escalating but it seems that was not to be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Coffee has blocked DrChrissy for a month. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

DrChrissy

Elephant in the room time. DrChrissy has been blocked three times this year, twice for a week and once for a month. He's topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed, human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed, and GMOs, broadly construed. He also has an indefinite interaction ban with Jytdog. A search fot he archives of this page will show numerous instances where DrChrissy pours petrol on the flames of disputes, and multiple failed / bad faith attempts to use process to get rid of others in content disputes. Now is not the time, as DrChrissy can't participate here for the duration of the current one-month block, but I get the strong feeling that the end of the WP:ROPE is approaching. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it has become increasingly clear in recent months that Dr. Chrissy is obsessed with their own restrictions, of which, according to WP:RESTRICT there are actually four, three arbcom restrictions and one community-imposed. If you have that many restrictions it is supposed to be an indication that you need to tread lightly and be very careful npt to violate them, and Dr. Chrissy has done the exact opposite of that again and again. We're beyond the end of the rope. So many of us have tried to talk to them, have let them off when they could have been blocked, and this is what happens. I'm not sure it's necessary to wait until the current block is over as I can think of no assurance they could give that would be believable at this point and we've all already bent over backwards trying to be fair to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I kind of like DrChrissy, but yeah. I think we're just about out of rope, and there's plenty of slack there for the ole thirteen wraps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a shame too because they seem to be a decent editor in the realm of animal welfare. Since the GMO case I, and numerous others, have advised some version of "just move on" multiple times now but it's just not taking. The options are admittedly growing slim, though I'd have a hard time supporting an indef proposal before they come back from their block and are able to make a statement of some sort.Capeo (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's going to be effectively almost a siteban (given the fact that no admin is going to want to be the person to uncork the bottle on that drama any time soon), it really is appropriate that Chrissy be here to provide whatever context they can for their actions, given the breadth of the analysis of their conduct. But yes, I agree that at some point the stack-up of sanctions, issues, and accusations of gaming the system calls for some serious scrutiny from the community. I've caught bits and pieces of this apparently consuming effort of Chrissy's to get the topic ban removed, but I hadn't realized how bad it had gotten most recently. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what is up with DrChrissy. His behavior has oddly changed from the first time I encountered him. However, I strongly suggest giving him a few more inches/centimeters of rope for a final grip. He should be warned that any further violations of his various bans--after his month long block--will almost certainly result in an indefinite site ban. I suggest this only because he really is a very good editor when he focuses on editing. Perhaps when he realizes that he is at the end of his rope, he will stop engaging in disruptive behavior. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I have held off thus far despite my irritation at his constant sniping around his numerous opponents. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with all the points made by everyone here, and agree that if he repeats the (sniping) scenario at any time after his month-long block expires, he can expect a site ban. So I recommend that this be his Final warning, and that it be posted on his talk page as such. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, it should be noted that DrChrissy was also planning to file a spurious complaint against Jytdog just a few days ago (17 February), but was saved from a likely boomerang only because he wasn't able to figure out which noticeboard to use. This editor has made some excellent content contributions, but very much needs to step back from a) past interpersonal disputes and grudges; and b) attempting to tinker with Wikipedia's user-conduct machinery. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban from administrative (user conduct) noticeboards unless summoned (eg, its about them)? Its been done before. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't get behind yet another topic ban. There comes a point that you can only try to save someone from themselves so much before it just becomes a bit silly. At this point DrChrissy is either going to get it and move on or not and likely face an indef. Capeo (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, they are already under four editing restrictions, and can't stop pushing the boundaries of them instead of just getting back to productive editing, which is the whole point of editing restrictions. A fifth is unlikely to have the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Putting up a signs, fences and warnings around a minefield isn't going to stop someone who is intent on entering it. Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes it even redoubles their determination. EEng 07:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's a difficult issue, because DrChrissy is, on the one hand, capable of very good editing, and on the other hand, apparently incapable of controlling himself when faced with restrictions. Believe me, I've tried very, very hard, many, many times, to convince him to drop various sticks, and I have gotten nowhere. I facepalmed when I saw the IBAN violation here, as well as the wikilawyering that the thread wasn't really about Jytdog. On the other hand, I also facepalmed when I logged in today to find a message on my talk page from Beyond My Ken, informing me that he had partly reverted my previous attempt to close this discussion, and had struck through part of what I, not he, had written. I still think that this discussion about DrChrissy should be closed for the time being, with no prejudice to reopening it in a month, when he will be able to respond. I note the following comments by other editors here. Guy: Now is not the time, as DrChrissy can't participate here for the duration of the current one-month block... Capeo: though I'd have a hard time supporting an indef proposal before they come back from their block and are able to make a statement of some sort. Snow: it really is appropriate that Chrissy be here to provide whatever context they can for their actions... I agree. It's not like he is going to disrupt anything before then, after all (other than perhaps triggering a block of his own user talk), so it's not an urgent matter. That said, I support a final warning being formally issued. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• The wikilawyering is what motivated me to get off my butt and file the AE request. Otherwise it was revert and hoping no one would pick up the stick. I agree that we need a formal warning and then to close this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'd very much support closing this now as well. It's never a comfortable feeling discussing an editor who can't respond. A formal final warning seems to be a bit of a, well, formality at this point but maybe that final line drawn in the sand will work where all other advice has failed. Capeo (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would have no problem with closing this, as long as someone posts the final warning that appears to be the consensus here, and for that I believe we need an uninvolved admin as a closer. Otherwise, I think everything has been said that needs to be said. However, I disagree that DrChrissy being blocked makes the commentary here awkward, since the point is not to engage in a debate with him – things having gone well beyond the point where such a debate is productive – but to inform him of the sense of the community concerning his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

God help us if the guiding principle of dispute resolution becomes that an accused editor can be denied an opportunity to respond to accusations just because someone else takes it upon themselves to decide that it would be unproductive. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahem...

Can someone uninvolved please close this and issue a formal warning as above? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Agree, consensus seems pretty rock solid that this is the last final chance, and DC is probably fortunate to be getting it. TimothyJosephWood 11:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as the uninvolved person understands that it's not (just) TBAN and IBAN violations we're talking about here, it's the myriad other bad-faith and disruptive behaviors he indulges in, including turning up in noticeboard discussions only to stir *beep* and make thinly-veiled snipes. It's his general gratuitous childish disruptive behavior and unrequested interference that everyone is thoroughly sick of. (If I'm not mistaken.) I personally wouldn't mind if Guy or any other admin who has commented or who is familiar with the case posted the final warning. We're pretty much beyond standing on ceremony at this point. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. A good many of DrChrissy's AE blocks were the result of them inserting themselves into conversations involving editors that they had past conflicts with. The most recent example being where they dropped a snide (and factually incorrect) comment at an AE they had absolutely no involvement in other than the fact that one of the editors involved was part of the GMO case. It's this following perceived opponents around that's been at the heart of most of DrChrissy's sanctions since the GMO case. Capeo (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning note on their page here. I have no other opinion on DrChrissy, except that I truly hope they understand THIS is the last straw for them. I couldn't made it more clear I feel in my comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That works. The only thing I see that may be missing is a direct reference to AE in addition to AN/I as they have twice been blocked there for filing spurious reports. Though, if DrChissy tries to wikilawyer around the warning by saying there was no mention of AE then there's really no hope anyway. Capeo (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That's where the phrase "other general bad-faith, disruptive behavior" comes into play. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for issuing the warning, and thanks also to Beeblebrox for the added comment. I think all of that was very well-presented. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal 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.

---

Direct legal threat ("legal action will be taken if wikipedia do not engage in correct legal action") from an IP User:2A02:C7D:787D:9F00:A03C:43BA:B34B:43DA who wants to remove the sourced name of a world record holder from an article. Presumably block evasion by User:Palkanetoijala who has made similar threats over this article in the past. --McGeddon (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not touching that article with a ten-foot pole, but if we are going to name the record-holder inline, the spelling of his first name should probably be amended to match the cited source. Both spellings show up on a Google search, so I don't want to say which is correct or not, but it looks like a misspelling when it differs from our cited source. A 2013 magazine available on 007museum.com gives the "i" spelling for what it's worth. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The unclear spelling is under discussion on the talk page and seems to have reached an unimplemented conclusion (pick one and mention the other spelling in a footnote), I'm just flagging the legal threat. --McGeddon (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• Since it's not obvious from the above, this is about more nonsense from the Tube Challenge idiots. EEng 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Could any admin deal with this highly disruptive user?

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

---

Ozymaxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Apart from adding unsourced hoaxes everywhere, using fake edit summaries, as well as creating hoax articles (they are already deleted; see his talk page + contributions for further info), this comment on my user page does it IMHO.[253] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on their last edit to your talk page, I've blocked as WP:NOTHERE. It's obvious they are here to make a point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:JimmyNeutron2016

The following discussion is closed. 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 recently encountered JimmyNeutron2016 at Sigmund Freud. He made an edit there that was neither very bad nor very good; I reverted it as I felt the previous version was a little better. Unfortunately, JimmyNeutron2016 has chosen to revert me twice. I would not normally bring something like this to ANI, but I have brought the matter here because in his most recent revert he chose to call me an "antisemitic person", based on absolutely zero evidence, naturally. This is a gross violation of WP:NPA, of the kind that someone could and should be blocked for. I note that this user has already been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing, and that he has "The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts" plastered on his user page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm so deeply sorry. Not. JimmyNeutron2016 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You have no place on a collaborative project if you think that such insults are acceptable. You pretty much deserve an indefinite block at this stage, and this repetition of the "antisemite" insult directed against me, after you were already brought to ANI for the matter, confirms that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:RickinBaltimore has applied the appropriate tool for the job. TimothyJosephWood 20:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And so I have. Two blocks in an awfully short amount of time, continued edit warring with possible BLP violations, and then the comment above? All adds up to not being here to work on the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to request that the edit summaries accusing me of being anti-semitic be hidden or otherwise removed from the article's history. They are 100% pure disruption and don't belong on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed the edit summaries as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like User:Myac00nt has taken up the mantle - this edit is identical to the changes made by JimmyNeutron2016. Please would you review this user as a suspected sockpuppet of JimmyNeutron2016. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go to SPI on this. Certainly is quacking, that's for sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Myac00nt sure looks to be a suspected sock puppet of the recent user who was indef-blocked. Check users are more proficient in investigating users who abuse multiple accounts that have a history of committing trouble like this. SportsLair (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, though there was concern from another editor earlier this month that the now blocked user was sockpuppeting (see here: [254]). This is to clarify that for sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Laser brain was indeed expressing concerns about it before. Now to finish this show off for sure, we will investigate if User:Myac00nt really is the block evader. There's a lot of psycho-aliens creating multiple accounts when their main accounts gets indef-blocked. I even expressed my own concern, myself. SportsLair (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Well, I see that User:Ks0stm set the banhammer on the sock, so it looks like this crisis is all over now. SportsLair (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Suicide 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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DPLAYER556&oldid=766875138

Emergency have been notified. Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Could be a real threat, but could equally be someone just trying to cause disruption or panic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Whichever one it is, we have to assume it's real. Adam9007 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Left the user a note. El_C 23:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Please see WP:SUICIDE, we have established procedures for this, including posting here to alert admins. All threats are to be taken seriously, and users should not self-appoint themselves as suicide counselors. Emergency has been notified, I have done the necessary administrative actions, that should be the end of our involvement, let the back office take it from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

People suffer from depression after being unable to understand how severe their consequences are, and this is all what it comes down to. I even posted a notice to help the blocked user cope about it (if it can ever cope about it) SportsLair (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, cut it out. By now the back office will have responded and gotten in contact with actual professionals. I know it is tempting to try and reach out in these situations but it is not actually helpful. That being the case I have deleted their talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:EvilLair

The following discussion is closed. 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 getting reports that this user has been posting unnecessary Happy Birthday messages to here and of course, my own talk page. Matter to be made worse, the user is begging to tell me something, but users have their own schedules. It wouldn't be all that necessary to beg or post birthday messages to any user you don't even know. SportsLair (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not true. The user gave me permission to give them a message wishing them for their birthday as long as he deletes it right after, and now he's using it as a tool to report me. I asked to tell you something because you gave me permission. This user gives me permission to do some stuff and then uses it as a tool to report me to the staff of the site. This is a usual trick of his, and it's slanderous and defamatory (not in a legal way, but you know what I mean, he's trying to tell lies to get me in trouble). EvilLair (✉ | c) 00:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No permission or authority was given in any way. Nothing would grant any right to post unnecessary messages, such as birthday messages to anyone you don't know yet. SportsLair (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I must conclude this is a complete and utter non-issue. Why is this brought up in WP:ANI? Kleuske (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As an added update, the offender posted this message recently, still claiming that it gave permission to post a happy birthday notice, although it's not allowed if you don't fully know that user. SportsLair (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request to bring behaviour at an AfD here

The following discussion is closed. 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 appear to have been asked to bring the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Meghwal rape case here by E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs), specifically with regard to their rather ambiguous comment here about WP:BLUDGEON. It is a waste of everyone's time but they obviously think someone - probably me - is behaving in an untoward manner at that AfD. So, peanut gallery, do your worst. Or just close this asap. Whichever you choose, with my apologies and a strong sense that this is just stupid. I will notify Inlinetext (talk · contribs) also as they appear to be the only likely other candidate for EMG's cryptic comment. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, from reading it, it appears that YOU suggested bringing the discussion here. I'd advise dropping the stick, adding your !vote and then editing something else. Bringing disputes here to AN/I very rarely ends well. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible block evasion by User:Fanoftheworld

I made a self revert at Steinway & Sons after Huggle misfired and caused me to revert the wrong page. However, when I was reverting the erroneous warning at User talk:193.33.148.24, I noticed a previous block by User:Edgar181 regarding block evasion from User:Fanoftheworld on the same article using this IP. Therefore, I believe this user is repeating the behavior which spawned the block. Home Lander (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I blocked this IP on Feb 16 because it was reported to AIV as an IP-sock of Fanoftheworld and was editing disruptively. Edits since the block expired appear to be constructive to me, so I would let it go for now - but I don't really know the history of this editor, so if there is an admin who knows more and feels a different action is needed, I won't object. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the IP was back at it again shortly after you posted, and it has been blocked again by Widr. Home Lander (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vukovar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.81.0 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be about this post. It should be noted that the IP has not opened a discussion on the talk page. As this is a content dispute this thread could be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Put the right who have logged not his version

I'm sorry? Could you please explain the issue? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

its ok now i mean who log in wikipedia and who use revision history of wikipedia not only ip,sorry for my english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.81.0 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There was some rather nasty edit-warring between two sets of IPs (the OP here represents one side of the edit-war, but probably the one more in line with previous consensus on the article). I've semiprotected the article and reverted it to a version from some weeks ago, before the edit-warring started. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.81.0 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Hi me again i want you tell about provider services internet in my country ...my ip change every day (every 24 h) but if i want now change ip i only restart router and wait 2 minutes i change ip, maybe in his country same and change this. Bye and Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.81.0 (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Das osmnezz

User: Das osmnezz has recently returned from a 2-week block for disruptive editing (adding personal opinions into football articles), and they show no understanding of why they were blocked, as they've continued doing it, see [255]. As a background, during their editing history they have been:

• Blocked for using multiple accounts
• Repeatedly warned against creating articles about non-notable footballers- at least 5 times on their talkpage
• Repeatedly warned against adding own personal opinions into articles, and blocked for 2 weeks
• Blocked for copyright violations

This continuation of unhelpful behaviour has led me to believe that they aren't willing to listen to advice, and lack the competency required to edit Wikipedia. I am therefore requesting an indefinite block per WP:CIR. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've reviewed their contributions since being blocked. They have not socked since they understood what this means, have not inserted any new copyvios that I can see, and are not writing personal opinion. Yes they have created a new article on a probably non-notable person but nobody (including the OP here) has seen fit to PROD or AfD it so it's not obviously and instantly egregious. Their writing is poor and their grasp of WP process is sketchy but there is no need for a block because they are not breaking any procedures. An indefinite block per WP:CIR is effectively a ban and needs to be argued as such. Have you tried to make a genuine relationship with this user and educate them as to what they are doing wrong? (Hint: I know the answer to my own question....) Sorry, but even if we do end up banning this person the process takes a little more time than this.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Kim Dent-Brown Yes I've tried multiple times to explain/help, but no repsonses and they blank their talkpage periodically. See for example [256], [257], [258], [259], [260]. Clear case of long-term not listening. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict If you haven't found any evidence adding personal opinions, then you've missed some things. For example, you'll note addition of flowery language to Bobir Davlatov (removed here). This is part what got Osmnezz (talk · contribs), their first account blocked, and they only just got off a two week block for exactly that sort of thing. On top of that there's the problem that they don't seem to understand the limitations of their grasp on the English language. Their English isn't terrible, but it's bad enough that most of their edits require some language corrections. Not to mention the fact that they regularly revert my language corrections to their edits. I've attempted to engage with this editor since their first indefinite block was rescinded in October, and have been consistently ignored. In their unblock request Das osmnezz said: [If] I am unblocked, you will never have to warn me or block me again. Since then, they've been blocked three times over, and have ignored almost every warning they've been given. Under these circumstances, I respectfully submit that this editor doe not have the necessary competence to usefully contribute. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess after all. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Indef block: For so many times, it appears that this user has been warned not to post personal opinions on various articles, including on the sports players. It has been busted for an incident like this before, and seems to be still breaking its promises right after its block has been lifted. Maybe a longer to indefinite block would be necessary to prevent this troublemaker from committing any further offense. SportsLair talk) 20:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Supposing I am blocked indefinitely/banned will my articles be deleted? Das osmnezz (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Das osmnezz: No they won't be automatically deleted. I'm wondering why you can't just stop inserting your opinions into articles? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• For my newest article(after Bobir Davlatov), Kota Ranger FC doesn't have any inserted opinions in there(except what the person in the reference stated) and, like User:Kim Dent-Brown stated was that i didn't do any copyright violations/sockpuppet accounts and stopped undoing edits by User:Sir Sputnik. After Bobir Davlatov I stopped writing my own opinions in the articles(if I accidentally do it please notify me or block me if I persist-I won't clear my talk page) ever since Bobir Davlatov. As mentioned, you have the complete right to block me if i persist.Das osmnezz (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but why should I believe you? You've promised before that there wouldn't be any further problems, yet here we are. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Further comment: It is somewhat likely that this user, Das osmnezz (talk · contribs) who is doing all this, may be suspected to be a sock puppet of Osmnezz (talk · contribs). If there is any checkuser who could look into this, there just might be a way to put an end to this reigning chaos. SportsLair (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The two are confirmed confirmed to be the same. The editor was permitted to return to editing using their second on the condition that they were restricted to using only one account. (See this). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Recently,(since February 2017) I haven't even undid your corrections to my pages. Also, I stopped adding my personal analysis on post-Bobir Davlatov articles (see Kota Ranger FC and Francisco Ondo). What's more, I stopped making footballers who have never played in a fully professional league or national team ever.I know I have been constantly a problem but have since stopped. If i did put opinions, (such as Babajide David and Kpah Sherman) those opinions were by the sources itself and I indicate it clearly by writing who(the reference) gave that opinion.Das osmnezz (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Move Human like you activity from User:213.74.186.109

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

---

In the last hour 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs) re-instating edits by sock-puppet Wikisiki999 (talk · contribs). Compare the contributions, and note previous Human like you edits on those pages. Another IP block, or protection of the pages affected? Batternut (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is another block evasion of indef blocked user 'Human like you' [261] - obvious from contributions, also the IP confirmed that he registered the account 'Human like you'. This IP has been used by the same user at least since Sep 2016. User 'Human like you' has used multiple sock puppets before. 84.187.145.214 (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no question in my mind. The reversions restoring edits made by a blocked sock puppet account multiple times, the edit summaries left that clearly show the intent to roll back this editor, as well as the uncivil response that the IP made on this ANI report here just a few minutes ago - all show clear evidence of block evasion to me. The IP has been blocked for 72 hours for block evasion and all disruptive edits reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Should the IP be added to the list of sock puppets? 84.187.145.214 (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No. An IP address is not a sock puppet, and IP addresses can change ownership and users over time. While the edits were unquestionable in this case, there's no way to guarantee that an IP address belongs to the same person or is being used by the same person to edit. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not so experienced - but I've asked this question because I have seen that static IP's are in fact added to such lists in some cases. In this case by the contributions it is almost obvious that the same user (and only this user) has used this IP since at least Sept 2016 (e.g. tying to add the same content on [262] since Nov 2016). 84.187.145.214 (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries! You are correct to some extent. If the IP is static, then this does establish a reasonable plausibility that it belongs to the same person, organization, or area - it generally will not change. However, because an IP address is static does not automatically guarantee that it is controlled or solely used by one person, or the same person. Hence, it doesn't guarantee that all edits that are made from the IP are from that same person. The best thing to do in almost all situations like this is to examine edit behaviors and take administrative action only when satisfactory evidence exists that block evasion is occurring, and do so on a situational or a case-by-case basis. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

More of the same here: WhiteLightning1438 (talk · contribs). Reverted and blocked. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: But this new discovered sock puppet should be added to the list of sock puppets of 'Human like you', shouldn't it? And I found that for IP's there is the template Template:IPsock which could be used (though I don't know whether it is appropriate here). I just think that categorizing and marking the socks could be helpful to warn other editors. 84.187.150.100 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an example of a user that is actually a sock puppet and hence would be added to the relevant category. However, I personally don't add sock puppet accounts to categories like that, simply because I've dealt with numerous LTA users whose motivation was simply to make it as large as possible. In that case, each sock puppet account you add only motivates them that much more to continue what they're doing. Each sock that's added to the category associates "their name" and gives them recognition, the opposite of what we should be doing. It's certainly not improper to do (and you'd be correct in doing so), but it's just not something I personally do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Fishy IP editing behavior at Dakota Access Pipeline protests

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

---

1. 2602:302:D1A2:C740:3417:81AD:FBC3:94C1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 2602:302:D1A2:C740:9D88:45A1:95D6:4F90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 2602:302:D1A2:C740:C0E4:2B67:902E:46A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three separate IP's have shown up at Dakota Access Pipeline protests and made a major change to the article info. box changing the protest into a "civil conflict" that was won by the police. Looks very fishy to me, especially since it requires knowledge of templates. I reverted the major changes and posted on the talk page here and IP #1 immediately reverted back without discussion. If you want more specific information please let me know. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You know the saying, David Tornheim, "If it quacks like a duck". Just looking at the behavioral evidence and IP addresses is enough to prove to me that it is the same person trying to feign consensus. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

All in the same subnet. Certainly same person. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial:, @EvergreenFir: Thanks for the interest. The material they added is still up. Although it looks like it was reverted [263], most of the new material has been kept since the last stable version (21:05, 22 February 2017 by Rossbawse). Comparison: [264]. Can I, or one of your revert it back to that last stable version? I don't want to violate 1RR. I'm not really sure what the rules are in a case like this. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing [265]. :) Hopefully that will be the end of it. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IPv6 standard makes it absolutely plausible that it is the same person, but not in a suspicious way at all. This is because of the fact that IPv6 addresses are typically handed out dynamically at the /64 subnet, meaning that the first four blocks (2602:302:D1A2:C740) are reserved for the network, and the last four blocks (C0E4:2B67:902E:46A2, or XXXX.XXXX.XXXX.XXXX.XXXX, whatever...) are typically allocated to the client and can change. The edits don't seem suspicious either. I think we can leave well enough alone unless the edits are disruptive :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Oshwah. See my comments in the lower section of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 November 10; if you have an IPv6, your address is almost always changing within a range of a massive number of addresses, and there's nothing you can do about it. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Undisclosed paid editing

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

---

User:Galaron88 is editing Eugenio Benedetti on behalf of the subject and making legal threats to support that, see here. He also removes problem tags from those paid contributions, see e.g. here. I have already blocked him at Commons for the legal threats. Jcb (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, left a comment on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Supervoter AFD disruption

The following discussion is closed. 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:Supervoter appears to be a trolling SPA who has currently made edits on AfD's referencing his userpage and claiming that his !votes are worth "10 regular votes". Some of the logic seems decent, but clearly an account that was created with the intent of being disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the votes are quite unhelpful, but I do see someone who may be trying to provide their input (albeit he doesn't have knowledge of notability or verifiability). Have we tried talking to this user and encouraging them to hold off from participating at AFD until they understand these guidelines? I don't see a single message (or even a warning) on the user's talk page or in his talk page history. Maybe we should give him a chance first... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I agree that some of the comments are useful, but other more recent ones [266] are just plain disruptive, and with the SPA nature of the account and the userpage/signature seems like a clear attempt to disrupt AfDs to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the comments appear to be good-faith attempts to provide input. The diff you provided is an example of a comment that is not. Nonetheless, we should try educating the user and asking them to correct this behavior. Best case scenario, it works and they become a positive contributor. Worst case scenario, it doesn't. Either way, we should at least make a reasonable attempt to do so. We have much more to gain than to lose by doing so :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Agree with Oshwah; the user should also be informed of the issue on his user talk page. J947 05:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits like [267] or [268] demonstrate pretty clearly that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. The edits to AFD discussions since the time of my initial responses are starting to tip me over the edge from my initial position. While I hope he becomes a positive contributor, one can only wait and see... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: He should be thanking you as your comments are the only reason why he's not indeffed right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: See unblock appeal. You might want to do the honors :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN - Yeeeeeeahhh, I'll throw in the towel and say that this person is definitely WP:NOTHERE. Oh well, I tried ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Islandersa deliberately ignoring multiple editors and 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.

---

Over at Deaths in 2017, User:Islandersa is repeatedly adding in information to an entry despite being informed/reverted by myself, @Nukualofa:, @DrKilleMoff:, @Derek R Bullamore:, @Vycl1994:, @EternalNomad: and @Rcb1:. It's at this point clear to me the only goal is aggravation, so I feel blocking the editor is necessary. Rusted AutoParts 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the edit in question, performed many times over, contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. Somewhere in this mess is a 3RR violation by me (sorry), which I caught and fixed only for other editors to continue warning Islandersa. This continued on and on up to the filing of this report. Vycl1994 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

While the reported user is engaging in edit warring, I'm not prepared to consider this editor as the only one who is in the wrong regarding this dispute. When I see edit summaries like this aimed toward another editor, an edit summary and a comment like this being inserted into the article instead of being discussed on the article's talk page, and repeated back-and-fourth editing by multiple users (not just Islandersa) - I find that many of you have been edit warring and engaging in edits in-place of having a discussion. Instead of going after this person or that person for the policy violations I've seen, I think I'll go ahead and close this gate and put a gold lock onto it for a few days. Everyone involved in this dispute is expected to discuss their dispute and come to a consensus before making disputed changes. When the dispute is over, let me know and I'll remove the full protection on the page. Any admin is also welcome to do so as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Requesting help re: a personal attack

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

---

At the suggestion of User:CapnZapp, who had advised User:Pyxis Solitary and me to avoid each other, I am bringing this issue here. Two days after CapnZapp and others advised me and Pyxis Solitar to avoid each other, Pyxis Solitary added this note to their user page. Without using my name, Pyxis Solitary is clearly referring to things on my user page, such as my edit count and the accolades I've gratefully accepted from the many fellow editors with whom I collegially work. I believe it's wrong not only to make a personal attack like that but also to be "clever" and attack another editor using insinuation. I ask for help or at least advice: Is it OK for that editor to do this? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, looking purely at that edit there's no indication that it's pointed directly at you. I could spit and hit a dozen admins here who have accolades and counters and what-have-you. Maybe you should stop watching their userpage and go about your business? Primefac (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to have a look, but I'm not sure you saw the long, contentious thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists, and the advise by CapnZapp at the end of that thread. I could also point one toward User talk:Snow Rise#WP:ANI/Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue, in which Pyxis Solitary is slagging me off. The user-page diatribe, coming two days after a long contentious thread in which that editor took multiple, repeated shots at me, is absolutely directed at me, as further indicated by the editor's continuing attacks on Snow Rise's talk page.

But for the sake of argument, is it proper to have a diatribe like that directed against anyone? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly not directed at anyone at all, and the fact that you are monitoring the user's userpage is a violation of the advice to avoid each other. If I were you I would WP:DROPTHESTICK. Take the user's page off your watchlist. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And Tenebrae if this actually was directed at you, don't you think you are doing what she wants by responding like this? I don't believe it is singling you out, but if you still disagree why would you validate it with this AN/I? Just avoid her and if there is an actual issue work it out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Edits by POV pushing editor

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

---

TruthRevealer69 has demonstrated that they are clearly on Wikipedia with an axe to grind with edits such as these.[269][270][271][272]. Has shown, as well, little to no understanding of policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, or WP:FRINGE. Their name really says it all. I recommend a block based on WP:NOTHERE. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least the edit-warring is good grounds for a block. Also there's already a level 3 warning on their TP. Kleuske (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block: TruthRevealer69 is clearly not here to contribute to this site properly. I agree to what both users said before. SportsLair (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Any user with "truth" in their ID is typically up to no good, and that appears to be the case with this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Note to administrators: Please close as the reported party was blocked for 24 hours by Oshwah for edit-warring. Thank you. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet email 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.

---

I've just been sent about a dozen threatening emails from sockpuppets of User:Nate Speed. Could somebody please disable email for Nate Speed, Nathaniel43284, Nate Spidgewood, and Nathan3068alt. Wasn't sure where else to ask this. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

All accounts listed now have email disabled. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Verminlord666

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

---

Verminlord666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has edited music articles to replace genres and other info with original research. [273][274][275][276] The user continued despite the warnings and even stated that their ears are the source to their edits, clearly showing the edits as WP:OR.[277] Sekyaw (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for persistent addition of unsourced content to articles. User was warned plenty enough, and the edits continued up to this day. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Twice reverted and twice warned

The following discussion is closed. 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, I've twice been reverted and warned by Dan Koehl (talk · contribs), after attempting to remove this edit [278], the rationale for which was clearly explained, and yet again at the other editor's talk page [279]. I don't know what's going on here, and any help will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the worst of the promotional language. I can't see the content of the reference, so I don't know how good of a source it is, but overall this isn't (yet) and issue for ANI. Please take it up on the article's Talk page for further discussion. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

71.188.115.27 and 9/11 sanctions

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

---

71.188.115.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I need an uninvolved admin to topic-ban and/or block 71.188.115.27 with the discretionary sanctions authorized at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories. User has been spamming conspiracy theorist sources, refuses to look at WP:RS or comprehend the phrase "mainstream", claims that legitimate engineers who happen to be truthers somehow outnumber mainstream academics, seems to think that the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers do not speak for any significant number of engineers in comparison to truther movements, and keeps making some vague demands for sources in response to me pointing out that our article on the topic cites sources. Asking for sources to prove that a citation in an article exists about had me ready to block him as a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description of the situation. Simply read the talk for World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Theories to see. The article claims that the engineering community has reached a consensus that the CD theories are false. Two of the links used in the citation for this claim are broken. The third leads to a paper by a single engineer. I have presented sources that show numerous and well credentialed architects, scientists and engineers who disagree with the official collapse theory. Ian.thomson has complained that these are not reliable sources. Yet links to the very same sources and equivalent sources already exist in the citations in this article. He has willfully ignored my point while claiming I am a troll.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk • contribs)

If they look there, they'll see you:

• Asking for sources for the statement that our article cites particular sources, asking for them again, asking a third time, all despite being told that it's in the article and refusing to check it for yourself.
• Suggesting that there's some sort of bad-faith conspiracy to "hide the truth", accusing editors of being part of some horrendous plot to murder thousands of people.
• Posting conspiracy theorist vid after conspiracy theorist vid after conspiracy theorist website in response to being asked to post mainstream sources.

So my description is not really all that inaccurate. Your claim that it's a paper by a single engineer is a lie -- multiple authors, largely accredited professionals writing in peer-reviewed journals are cited throughout the article. Your narrow focus on Zdeněk Bažant's paper ignores that he knows what he's talking about, he has plenty of access to the majority of mainstream sources, that he was a co-author (not a single author), and that his work was published in a peer-reviewed journal. You also ignore that the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers support the NIST's findings. That you are incapable of finding the sources is your problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban/block No, that is exactly what happened.[280][281][282]. After numerous[283][284][285][286] attempts to explain the policies and guidelines regarding issue regarding highly controversial topics, continue to refuse to hear the points, or read and understand the policies. I completely support a topic ban/block of this editor. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

1) Your links to the ASCE claims are broken. I googled the subject and found nothing. That is why I continually ask for sources. 2) The sources you call illegitimate are already cited in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk • contribs)

1) Oh, now you decide to be clear instead of just asking for a source in response to being told what sources to look for. I'm having trouble believing that you even tried to search elsewhere, as simple as this was.

2) Context matters. The only citation of ae911truth.org in the article is to affirm that they claim something about themselves. This is within WP:SELFCITE. Even then, if the material was what you were hoping for (that they were cited to present them as legitimate), that material would be open to removal. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

For example I cited a C span interview with Richard Gage which the above users called illegitimate. A C-span interview with David Ray Griffin is already cited in the article. I suggested interviews with professional engineers could be used as sources -not to prove the CD theory - but to show who its proponents are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, context matters. The source is cited for the claim that Richard Gage published a book and that he makes claims -- it is not being cited to pretend that he has any legitimacy. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Ian.thomson fails to acknowledge points 1) and 2) above is a signal that he is deliberately trying to muddy the watters on this issue— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk • contribs)

You think that repeatedly just asking for sources instead of requesting an alternate link is not muddying the waters? You think it's not muddying the waters to pretend that what is obviously the mainstream view is just something that only the NIST and Bažant claim, while claiming that the signatures (assuming they're even legitimately from accredited engineers) in truther echo chambers aren't the exception? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. I told you at the outset that those links did not lead anywhere. And that is exactly my point about the sources. You already have those sources cited in the article. The interviews with the engineers don't give give the engineers legitimacy but they show what the engineers think. That is my point there are many engineers who are outspoken about the CD theory. Hence no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And the fact that you have tried to hide my comments and suggested administrative sanctions for making fair points indicates that you are afraid to admit the truth about this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a large number of experienced architects, engineers and scientists who believe the WTC was demolished. This is not the typical demographic of conspiracy theorists. This article tries to misrepresent the character of the Truth movement, making it sound like just another conspiracy theory - which it is technically not - it is an engineering theory. The claim that there is a consensus should be removed from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) What part of "Context matters. The only citation of ae911truth.org in the article is to affirm that they claim something about themselves." did you not underestand? The views of ae911truth.org is not a broad range of an accredited professionals writing in peer-reviewed journals, and most of their views have been debunked. Your refusal to accept that is on you.

(2) What utter baloney. Do you really expect to be taken seriously posting numerous YouTube videos (as noted above), after being redirected to WP:V multiple times?

(3) Again, the views of ae911truth.org does not represent mainstream academia. You have already been pointed towards WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE so many times I have lost count. There is no such thing as an "engineering theory", and a large majority of the people involved with ae911truth.org themselves are not engineers. Any rebuttal by you at this point will just further the case that you clearly have an axe to grind, will continue to ignore the fact that not only have a large majority of the 9/11 conspiracy theories been debunked, but the views of the small fringe group that still cling to them do not represent mainstream academia., and continue to use Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, as well as a WP:SOAPBOX. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing a need to entertain this any longer, I've blocked this editor for two weeks for being not here, disruptive editing, beating a dead horse, etc. If this editor were on an account, the block would have been indef. If he shows up again on this or another IP, he will be blocked again. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Suspected edits

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

---

There is currently a suspected IP sock farms making edits over at Nam Joo-hyuk's page. They keep removing content and sources from the #awards and nominations section.

For example:[287] This user has little to few edits, but knows how to create a warning on other users' page.

And different IP users making the same type of edits: [288] [289] [290]

Even though I opened a discussion on the talk page, these users do not want to engage in discussion, but stubbornly removes the content using different IP addresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.139.55 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Modern Sciences, disruptive editing

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

---

I want to inform that the User:Modern Sciences heavily pushes POV, removes content from articles and vandalises articles.

• Robert Kocharyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Serzh Sargsyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aşağı Ağcakənd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shusha massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Guba mass grave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Baku pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Füzuli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lachin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Economy of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Puppet state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of territorial disputes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• History of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Madrid Principles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I regret that after 4 warnings and many reverts the user is still engaged in disruptive editing. Therefore, I ask admins to take all the necessary measures to stop the user from disruptive editing. Boaqua (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Pleas supply actual WP:DIFFs that show the disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. His edits are a bit WP:POINTY, but are referenced. OP seems to be an Azeri upset with the edits based on the editing history.70.209.144.80 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You can check the history of the articles I linked. For example these edits:

• Robert Kocharyan : (1), 2 hierarchy? City, Province, Country.
• Serzh_Sargsyan: 1 hierarchy? City, Province, Country.
• Aşağı Ağcakənd, Shahoumian, Shahumyan, Shaumyan is an Armenian name
• Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum, 1991 :
• Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast: 1, 2
• Azerbaijan this article (Manipulation of the source material)
• Karabakh horse: 1
• Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh: this edition
• this
• Zəngilan: 1
• Azerbaijan: 1
• Armenian: 1, 2
• this
• Shahbulag Castle this
• Economy of th Nagorno Karabakh Republic: this (Manipulation of the source material and delete a big par of it)
• Lachin: this

Unfortunately, All of the editions of this user done be this method (Manipulation of the source material - deleting sentences, replacing with of other words or sentences, ...), Examples that above I mentioned are only a few of them. Dear reviewer admin I wanna inform that the User Boaqua heavily pushes POV, removes content from articles and vandalizes articles. I gave some Warning to him no responses

I dont know why Admins Waiver to his disruptive editions I dont know??

Modern Sciences (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You can check the history of the articles I linked. For example these edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madrid_Principles&type=revision&diff=765881957&oldid=765881587

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh&type=revision&diff=765882469&oldid=765882276

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Kocharyan&type=revision&diff=764738072&oldid=746419341

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serzh_Sargsyan&type=revision&diff=764737838&oldid=762912719

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guba_mass_grave&type=revision&diff=765881808&oldid=765881495

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_the_Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic&type=revision&diff=765638657&oldid=754064945

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puppet_state&type=revision&diff=765631561&oldid=761130010

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_territorial_disputes&type=revision&diff=765633057&oldid=765599902

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh&type=revision&diff=765639212&oldid=764597602

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madrid_Principles&type=revision&diff=765632003&oldid=756138341

The user was also warned by an admin, but continued his disruptive editing. Boaqua (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Block: If the offender cannot communicate properly and continue disruption, it may be possible for an admin to set the ban-hammer. SportsLair (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I also point out that Modern Sciences keeps adding a SPAM link to a site advertising the sale of some Armenian artist's CD at Kavare Mer, here, here and here.

Further, he keeps changing the date format from DMY to the American MDY format at Gohar Gasparyan. Since this an article not about an American subject the date format of MDY is not appropriate. Currently three reverts at here, here and here though not within 24 hours.

My only other concern is that his standard of English falls way short of anywhere near good enough to edit the English Wikipedia. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually came across this thread through 86.186.169.144's talk page, but clicking though the history on the articles that originally started this it, it looks like OP and MS probably reverted each other...I dunno, two or three dozen times across a span of a little more than a day. Was probably enough to justify blocks for edit warring all around. Well, other than the fact that that was almost a week ago. But since it appears that MS is continuing with similar behavior, I'm not seeing an obvious argument against a block for basically prolonged topic wide warring. TimothyJosephWood 18:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing like a bit of gross exaggeration. Please post diffs to these reverts (and you need to find at least twenty four to support your claim). The editing history reveals a different story. I have made a total of six (6) reverts across two articles in a little under two days. Whilst I, might concede that removal of advertising links does not appear to be a 3RR exemption, reverting vandalism is. At no time have I violated the 3RR rule. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about User:Modern Sciences and User:Boaqua. All you have to do is click through the histories of the 14 articles that are posted at the very top of this thread. Sorry, but I really don't feel like putting together 30 or so diffs. I meant OP as in original poster, not IP as in you. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My misunderstanding. It was understandable though as you had replied to me. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator noteI have indefinitely blocked Modern Sciences as they don't seem to be willing/able to follow out basic procedures or communicate coherently. This is not an endorsement of Boagua's behavior or edits. Frankly, the original issue reported here looks like a content dispute, but Modern Sciences demonstrated some pretty severe issues above and beyond that, hence the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

False user rights claims by Izaiah.morris

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

---

Izaiah.morris has falsely claimed on his user page that he has admin and other rights he does not have. He has restored these claims to his page multiple times despite warnings (see edit summary on this revert). He has also engaged in other problematic behavior recently, such as this abusive edit summary and the creation of two articles (Splix.io, EX Ministries) that were speedily deleted as promotional. Funcrunch (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the icons/userboxes, and full-protected the user page. If he agrees to stop playing games, any admin can unprotect without talking to me. This user claims to be here to improve Wikipedia by fighting vandalism, but I've seen little to no evidence of that; instead, he seems to be here to screw around. Any more behavior like that shown in Funcrunch's second diff will result in an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam and his analysis. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like he's now rapidly creating new articles, some of which are duplicates of existing articles. Neighbourhood (topology)/Citable Version seems to be a copy-paste of this article from Citizendium without attribution. Ugh. This is going to take a bit of effort to clean up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• It appears that all of their 'new' articles are simple copy-pastes from citizendium.org that they are claiming as there own "hard work". KylieTastic (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And now the user seems to have created a new account, Lilza35, sigh. Also, another editor started another ANI report on them further down the page; not sure if the discussion should be consolidated here or there. Funcrunch (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have flagged that as a sock and also note they are back to adding administrator claims (this) on the new account. KylieTastic (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Both accounts indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Izaiah.morris

The following discussion is closed. 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:Izaiah.morris doesn't seem to be doing much besides wasting our time on copy-and-paste articles. He has had multiple warnings and a trip to AN/I in the past. We need to figure out what we're gonna do here...TJH2018talk 16:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, 48 hours, at least to stem the flow of copy/paste. CV creations (i.e. all of them) have been deleted. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Azarbarzin and BLP

Azarbarzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account with a weird grudge against BLP Reza Aslan. His contributions to the encyclopedia consist of adding primary-sourced, poorly-sourced, and/or synthetic material to the BLP with the aim of casting aspersions on the subject (eg. [291], [292]) and of WP:IDHT "but it's true" comments on the talk page, despite previous warnings and explanations about sourcing.

I brought this here because even though WP:3RRBLP clearly applies, given that the user is synthesizing sources with the deliberate aim of making a living article subject look bad, I'm frankly tired of him spamming my user page. Can someone else deal with this?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I've reverted their recent re-addition since it did not seem to be supported by the sources provided, and left the user a EW warning on their talk, since it doesn't appear they have been warned against warring previously. That the subject is on this advisory council may in fact be both true and relevant, but the editing pattern as a whole, with additions such as this, and this (reinserted in some form I believe four times now), is pretty clearly aimed at disparaging the subject of the article. TimothyJosephWood 20:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I may be interpreting this incorrectly, so my apologies; but it may be a good idea to redirect this conversation towards complying with WP:NOTCENSORED. On the other hand, if the information that they're adding isn't supported by the refferences that they are providing, than that's an entirely separate issue... 172.56.39.33 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to Reza Aslan's Talk page [[293]] I have provided ample sources for Aslan being on the advisory board of the NIAC:

https://www.niacouncil.org/about-niac/staff-board/
https://www.niacouncil.org/message-reza-aslan/

Along with earnest effort to resolve this edit war. Azarbarzin (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick glance at the talk page here [[294]] testifies to the numerous efforts I've made to resolve this. Azarbarzin (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

To the IP, as a good rule of thumb, if naked people or curse words aren't involved, chances are WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't apply, although the mistake is understandable, since it's probably the single most misinterpreted policy on all of Wikipedia.

To the more general issue, I addressed the user's content concerns on my talk page, which hopefully will help clear things up some. I do think they're editing in good faith, but I also think they're fighting against a lot of policies that they don't yet fully understand, and that's probably the core issue here.

To Azarbarzin, I would stress that edit warring, and serial reverting, even if it's done with the best intentions will almost certainly result in a block. I would also point out that the reason we take biographies of living persons so very seriously, is because it's one of only a few things on the project that can actually get Wikipedia sued. So this would probably not be as serious if it weren't on a biography, but it happens to be, and we always have to be very careful in those areas, and hold ourselves to the highest standards for content. TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As this is ANI, I will argue about that last point. BLP is not so much concern about the WMF being sued; rather, BLP is based on a concern that we "get the article right" per the usual policies. In particular, BLP articles must not be used by passers-by to coatrack factoids asserting negativity about living persons. Azarbarzin must understand that repeating attacks against Reza Aslan will result in a block. The last text added by Azarbarzin was of the form "[BLP subject] is on advisory board of X. X is bad." People can be clueless about a lot of things at Wikipedia, but repeating such muck racking by association will result in blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While the community is obviously committed to the integrity of every article, the reason that COPYVIO and BLP are exceptions to 3RR, is precisely because the WMF gets sued over it. TimothyJosephWood 00:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Azarbarzin must understand that repeating attacks against Reza Aslan will result in a block -- Kindly explain why making a reference to Aslan being on the Advisory board of NIAC is perceived as an attack

Azarbarzin (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Quoting wikipedia:

Lobbying controversy and defamation lawsuit

In 2007, Arizona-based Iranian-American journalist Hassan Daioleslam began publicly asserting that NIAC was lobbying on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In response, Parsi sued him for defamation. As a result of the lawsuit, many internal documents were released, which former Washington Times correspondent Eli Lake stated "raise questions" about whether the organization had violated U.S. lobbying regulations. NIAC responded that it is in "full compliance with all regulations and laws" and published all of its tax returns online to back up its claim. Andrew Sullivan responded to the story in The Atlantic, suggesting the motive of the story was to "smear" Parsi’s reputation.

In September 2012, U.S. Federal District Court Judge John D. Bates threw out the libel suit against Daioleslam on the grounds that "NIAC and Parsi had failed to show evidence of actual malice, either that Daioeslam acted with knowledge the allegations he made were false or with reckless disregard about their accuracy." However, Judge Bates also noted that "nothing in this opinion should be construed as a finding that [Daioleslam’s] articles were true. [Daioleslam] did not move for summary judgement on that ground." On April 9, 2013, Judge Bates ordered NIAC to cover a portion of Daioleslam's legal expenses.

References

Does that qualify as an attack? Azarbarzin (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the above is from National Iranian American Council which does not mention Reza Aslan and which is irrelevant for this discussion. I mentioned that it is unacceptable to add text like "[BLP subject] is on advisory board of X. X is bad." That is known as synthesis where an editor joins two statements to convey a conclusion. In this case the conclusion is unstated—readers are left to infer that the person is bad because they are associated with a bad thing. Single purpose accounts often try to add negativity to articles with such techniques. The attacks end up being removed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

NIAC does mention Reza Aslan as being on their Advisory Board. Aslan's membership in NIAC is deleted from his wiki page. That could not possibly be considered an attack. Please check my edit history. Single purpose account does NOT apply to me. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is pretty quickly becoming a discussion on article content, rather than editor behavior. Azarbarzin seems to understand fairly well at this point that edit warring is not the way to decide this issue, and discussion is. They went so far as to open an RfC a couple of weeks ago in fact, which could probably use more active participation (BTW, hint hint), but at the end of the day is objectively the correct thing to do in a content dispute. They seem to be actively discussing in good faith, and not reverting, so we can probably let this run its course on the article talk without the immediate need for any sanctions.

Overall, learning what counts as a reliable source and how to resist the fairly natural inclination of writers, as writers, to WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, is pretty run-of-the-mill for new editors, especially particularly motivated ones.

As a side note Roscelese, while warning templates are often useful, its usually more useful in situations where new editors respond to literally every single warning you give them with a question, to follow that up with more than repetitive boiler plate templating. Edit summaries like this gets more and more ridiculous and comments like What a weird attempt at a threat probably did exactly zero to deescalate the situation, and contribute to actual productive discussion. Just FYI. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been an editor since 2009 - I understand that relatively speaking, it could be marked as [ new editor ] -- all in all, new or experienced, we ought to refrain from accusations such as Single purpose accounts by Johnuniq - it is not only unprofessional but derails a cordial fruitful discussion. BTW, Most editors learn by asking questions-- cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but when I say "new editor", I'm talking more about "time spent working on Wikipedia articles", and not necessarily "time spent since you registered your account," and although you registered your account quite a few years ago, you don't have a whole heck of a lot of experience editing pages, which is pretty much the only way that editors learn all these many many rules that govern article content. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior at AfD and MfD

I'd appreciate it if an admin could take a look at the actions of Shiesmine and 86.0.244.52, who I suspect are the same individual. For some reason, this account/IP combo is on a crusade to delete a blank userpage. =I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Swineposit because it was not the proper venue for such a discussion, but that discussion was also problematic because the nom has casted repeated !votes and had reverted Amortias's striking of these votes [295]. The duplicate !voting has continued at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Swineposit, which more duplicate !votes being cast even after I struck the first batch. Shiesmine received multiple talk page warnings, but these warnings went unheeded. I don't know why such a new user is so overly concerned with deleting the userpage of an indef-blocked editor, unless Shiesmine and Swineposit are the same person. At the very least, Shiesmine appears to be guilty of disruptive editing while both logged-in and logged-out. Lepricavark (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, please note these further problematic edits related to this situation by the above IP: [296] and [297]. Lepricavark (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have posted to the MfD with reasons why I think the page should be speedy deleted. EdChem (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And Amakuru deleted the page, so I think this is a done deal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's not clear to me what relationship Shiesmine has with the original user Swineposit, or why Shiesmine was so keen to see the page deleted, but the intention of Swineposit when requesting the page and blanking it seemed clear enough, so I have closed the MfD accordingly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And they have now reopened another one requested the talk page is deleted and that they are deleted from Commons, as much as I'm happy to clear up sensitive stuff, the amount of edits that are causing unrequired work is definetly showing that WP:CIR needs to be deployed. Amortias (T)(C) 15:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The repeated insistence on casting duplicate !votes, which has carried over to the new MfD, shows that this user has an IDHT problem. Also, I still think they're a sock. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing, as the MfDs and repeated votes clearly were. I'm in agreeance with Amortias as will, this looks like a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Editor Interaction Analyser shows a fairly extreme overlap in edits. Clear sock. --Yamla (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla, I was 99.44% sure of it, that seals the deal. Indef'd for evading a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Amortias, I think deleting the user page was the right call, and also to RickinBaltimore as this is clearly a sock issue, as Lepricavark noted. In line with policy the user talk page obviously shouldn't be deleted, but with the history intact blanking would reduce its visibility, which seems to me to be the aim of the editor. I wonder if blanking the old user talk page might reduce the chances of further disruption? EdChem (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Friends shipping vandal

All IPs in a narrow range 75.120.xxxxx and 75.121.xxxxx registered to CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc. in south central Alabama (except for one apparent trip to grandma's house for Thanksgiving).

Only edits are to Friends articles, mostly individual seasons and character lists. All edits are focused on changing the pairings of characters in the show from the plot to new couplings:Chandler with Rachel; Monica with Joey; keeping Ross with Emily (thus "Shipping".

2015 edit summaries were mostly new character names. Few edit summaries in 2016. 2017's edit summary is "Yes."

All IPs are with the same carrier in south central Alabama, with the exception of 11/24-25/2016, in southeastern Alabama (for Thanksgiving, I guess). Edit history goes back to July, 2013. Recent list is available at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Friends_shipping_vandal. Most recent IP is Special:Contributions/75.120.111.92. Ignores talk requests and blocks.

Is a range block an option here or are we stuck with the usual? - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this range is mainly where the disruption is coming from. The range isn't too active, and there haven't been many constructive edits in the past month; however, I've never blocked a /17 before. I don't want to get in trouble for being trigger-happy about wide range blocks, so I'm going to wait to see if a more experienced admin wants to chime in. It seems OK to me, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree - the 75.120.0.0/16 range looks to cover the root of where the disruption is coming from. Looking at the disruption over the last two days to "Friends-related" articles, the disruption came from 75.120.111.92 and 75.120.60.13. I looked into just blocking 75.120.111.0/24 and 75.120.60.0/24, but there are no other edits at all from other IPs under these two ranges, which essentially makes doing so completely moot. I went ahead and blocked the 75.120.0.0/16 range for 72 hours for disruptive editing. I think it's best to start small and see where things go from there. If we need to extend it, we can certainly do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if this is Bambifan101 who's come up with a new obsession. The geolocate isn't that far from where Bambifan haled from. Blackmane (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Jews

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

---

Please see the User_talk:Debresser#LOL section on my talkpage, which links to an article on a blog,[298] which warns about organizations that will be contacted and steps that will be taken to influence Wikipedia on a specific issue. In addition to linking to my Wikipedia and Facebook accounts. Indeed, since that time various single purpose IP editors or editors who were inactive till recently have tried to change that category page.[299][300][301][302][303][304] I don't know what the customary steps are in such a situation, but I would recommend to check for socks and perhaps protect this article full protection for some time. Debresser (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that I think the blog author doxxed you, if I know my terms correctly. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I put in a request at RPP, in the future that is where requests for page protections should go. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've declined it as semi won't do much. Warn the other editor for edit warring and see how it goes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Will do, and let's keep this open 24-48 hours. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that a violation of WP:MEAT? Someone should probably contact the writer of the blog and inform them about that policy. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As if they would care. In any case, this is turning out to be a good thing after all, because all those problematic editors are coming out of hiding to make an edit on the category page, so now we'll know their identities. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

On a very related note, possibly with direct relation to this issue, User:Jeffgr9 decided to make the same edit on more category pages.[305][306][307][308] I reverted him and warned him on his talkpage,[309] but he decided to edit war about it.[310][311][312][313] Debresser (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, of what are you accusing me? I made edits as per the recent RfC & survey consensus that confirms that Jews should be listed under being of Asian/Southwest Asian descent, because Jews, at their core, are a Semitic People and thus a Southwest Asian people, like Arabs. I did not edit war--edit warring would be continued reverts without due cause/explanation. I provided clear explanations as well as your violations of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Just accept the heavily cited verdict and move on; Jews are a Semitic (Afro-Asiatic, Southwest Asian, North-Northeast African, "Middle Eastern," etc.) People. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A Semitic people, yes. To say that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is simply incorrect. And even for those who are it is irrelevant. But that is not the issue here. The real issue is that WP:MEAT was trumped up for that Rfc, and 5 out of the 7 "keep" votes should be disqualified. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser (talk), Semitic Peoples are "Middle Eastern;" Jews' customs/traditions are "Middle Eastern," and those who join the Tribe, "converts," and their descendants, thus intersect and become (increasingly with further practicing generations, like the Abayudaya), Ethnoculturally "Middle Eastern" by sociopolitical association. The strengths of the arguments won the survey, not the number of people, as the deciding editor noted. Your claim of WP:MEAT is irrelevant because the arguments presented to keep the categorization of Jews as being of Southwest Asian/Asian descent (as a People) were stronger than those to remove. In addition, I disagree with your analysis of the various editors who participated in that survey and RfC, myself being one of the editors whom you did not mention; for example, User:Musashiaharon has made multiple edits on various articles and talk pages, several discussions of which I have also participated, so your criticism of that editor is invalid; User:Bubbecraft's made many edits before the Rfc/survey, perhaps they got exhausted with editing after the discussion? According to their page, they are a retired computer programmer—perhaps they want to do other things with their life? Again, your criticisms of those two editors are invalid. Todah Rabah.Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you say "Jews' customs/traditions are 'Middle Eastern,' and those who join the Tribe, 'converts,' and their descendants, thus intersect and become (increasingly with further practicing generations, like the Abayudaya), Ethnoculturally 'Middle Eastern' by sociopolitical association." What does that mean in plain English? A person was either born in a geographic area or not. Similarly a person's ancestors were either born in a geographic area or not. Converts are an obvious example of people that likely are not of Middle Eastern extraction. There have been converts to Judaism throughout countless generations. You seem to be saying that Middle Eastern extraction rubs off on people. No it does not. You use the phrase "increasingly with further practicing generations". What does that mean in plain English? As the generations go by, succeeding generations become more and more of Middle Eastern descent? If that is what you are saying, that is the sort of misinformation that we should keep out of this encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This statement will be part of my response, I copied and pasted it from a statement I made below: The pathways and decisions new members of the Tribe make are directly related to their newfound and intersecting heritage--they would be treated as other Jews who are of ethnic Jewish/Middle Eastern descent (which is the majority of Jews, mind you). The racism new members experience, the changes in their cultural and behavorial lifestyles, the language they now adopt (Semitic, Afro-Asiatic), all contribute to new members' shift in identity. In part, Tribally/Ethnoculturally, new members and their lineage begin to intersect and embrace a Middle Eastern lifestyle through Judaism. Thus, again, Tribally, new members intersect Jewish heritage, and their descendants--if they carry on tradition/culture--bind closer and closer to Jewish/Middle Eastern culture and become, in part and by sociopolitical affiliation/association, Middle Eastern themselves. NOTE: Some Native/Indigenous American Tribes have practiced the same type of "adoption" and consider the same sentiment regarding their new members. In addition, descent does not just rely on geographic residence, it depends on multiple variables, including genetics, Tribal/sociopolitical affiliation, culture/language/lifestyle, and more. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—does conversion to Judaism entail racism? You've got to stay on topic. You refer to "[t]he racism new members experience". What are you talking about, and is this on-topic? If you have an ax to grind can you take it up in an appropriate forum? As to the rest of your response, it is murky. "[D]escent does not just rely on geographic residence, it depends on multiple variables, including genetics". To the best of my knowledge one's genetic makeup is not altered by religious conversion, not that genetics bears any relation to geography, again—to the best of my knowledge. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, of what "axe" are you speaking?? I asked the same question to Sir Joseph and got no response. When a person joins the Tribe, they adorn themselves the responsibilities and risks entailed with being a Jew—including racism against Jews (a.k.a. Anti-Semitism). Genetics absolutely bear relation to geography. I have posted many times studies regarding the the genetic markers that tie ethnic Jews (as in the majority of Jews) to the Middle East/region of Canaan and Iraq. Jews who joined the Tribe, or descend from those who joined the Tribe, most times would follow the pathways that ethnic Jews follow, whether through exile, slavery, genocide, or escaping one or all three—especially because many new members belong to communities of ethnic Jews. You also did not respond to the source I provided, something that seems to be a pattern with you, Debresser, and Sir Joseph... Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—what you are calling a source is not a source. (This is your source.) Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Yes, you linked to a source, broadly speaking, but the source you linked to was not a source which supported the idea that all Jews were of Middle East descent. In an encyclopedia you cannot be permitted to foist gibberish on the reader. Ideally assertions are directly supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, the source I provided was meant to show you how ethnicity works in a Tribal context and does not always depend on blood quantum. Meanwhile, here are some other sources as to the non-"outlandish" sentiments of all Jews being from the Middle East: "Jews of the Middle East," by Loolwa Khazzoom, who says, "Regardless of where Jews have lived most recently, all Jews have roots in the Middle East.", and "75 percent of today's Jews have Middle Eastern origins, says DNA pioneer". Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Add to this User:The Human Trumpet Solo, who made only 7 edits between that Rfc and the new uprise of the PW:MEAT issue, and now takes an active position in this edit war as well.[314][315][316][317][318] Debresser (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC) And then did it once more:[319][320][321][322][323] after he participated in this thread and was aware of all warnings. Debresser (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"the language they now adopt (Semitic, Afro-Asiatic)".

Wait a minute. Not all Jews actually speak the Hebrew language, nor any other of the Afroasiatic languages. Several of them speak one or more Indo-European languages. Dimadick (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Dimadick, new members, or "converts," have to learn some Hebrew in order to join the Tribe, and they are given a Hebrew name; thus, they adopt for themselves a new native tongue—Hebrew. At the same time, one should not blame Diasporic Jews, nor converts to Judaism, for their Diaspora, which has caused many Jews to have to unlearn or limit their use of Hebrew due to many cases of Anti-Semitic legislation and fear of genocide/persecution, especially in Europe (which made cause for the creation of languages such as Yiddish and Ladino, which mix some Hebrew with grammar structures and certain words from German/Russian/Polish and Spanish, respectively); regardless, Hebrew is the Indigenous native L'Shon (tongue) of all Jews, even if they do not understand it. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Overturn Rfc

I just did some research. The Rfc on Category talk:People of Jewish descent, which is related to this issue, was loaded with WP:MEAT. Regarding its closure: 1. The Rfc was evenly balanced, with 7:7. 2. It was a first-time closure by a non-admin. 3. The closing statement is internally inconsistent, claiming at the same time to reach "keep" and also to keep a consensus version, where consensus version from 2013 was not to have the category. 4. In addition there is the WP:MEAT issue which I raised in this WP:ANI thread: User:ChronoFrog is a blocked sock, User:Bubbecraft never edited after that discussion, User:Musashiaharon made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue, User:2603:3024:1818:3B00:CCF9:AFE5:1187:21BE was a one-edit account, User:PA Math Prof made no edits between that Rfc and this WP:ANI issue, so 5 out of the 7 "keep"s should be disqualified. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

To overturn the RFC, you can go to WP:AN. Just to comment a bit more concise why the RFC close was piss-poor: When the people involved confused the Jewish people, Jews as a whole and Jews as an individual, it's clear the close was not correct. The Jewish religion is from the Middle East, so if there was a categories of religions from the ME, then put Judaism there. This category is identifying people who are Jewish, in other words it's an individual identification. That means it goes by the individual. So out of the 15 Million Jews worldwide, can we label ALL of them as being from the Middle East? It is quite ludicrous how because of POV pushers with 30 edits to their belt (not that that means much, but it shows SPA and meating) we are now labeling ALL 15 million Jews individually as being from the Middle East. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this outing and WP:MEAT thread is the logical place to keep the issue of the Rfc as well. I am not going into the arguments of the Rfc itself, although I personally think you are right; I am just saying that the Rfc was decided by WP:MEAT, and should be overturned for that reason alone (and a little bit also because of the other reasons I mentioned). Debresser (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe not everyone has the time to edit as much as you do? I do this in my spare time, which I have very little of these days. I've pared down my focus to topics that are on my watchlist, this being one of them. This seems to be little more than a witch hunt.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps regarding you personally. I always assume good faith, and you have always been a fair editor, even if we disagreed. But that Rfc was clearly influenced, in a decisive way. And your edit war of today was also ill advised.Debresser (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've only reverted you once, and the sole reason I did so is because your revert was a guideline violation. And you already tried to overturn the decision, and failed. See here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive286#RFC_Closure_review_Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent.23Survey The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That discussion did not mention the WP:MEAT issue at all! And in addition it was mostly off-topic. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"But that Rfc was clearly influenced, in a decisive way." The only evidence you have is the relative inactivity of most of the involved editors, including myself, and the fact that one editor (ChronoFrog) abandoned his account and became an IP editor which, although against the rules, doesn't discount his !vote. Furthermore, the survey was decided by !votes i.e. the strength of arguments, not numerical majority.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The numbers very much influenced the outcome, obviously. Let's start with the fact that the Rfc would not have been opened at all, if not the WP:MEAT pushed for an Rfc in spite of the previous consensus on the talkpage. Moreover, this was the first close of a non-admin, and he should never, never, never have undertaken to close such a complex, widely discussed and evenly balanced Rfc. Even though he referred to the strength of arguments, he surely would not have done that if the numbers were as clear cut, 7:2, as they should have been. In addition, even though this is besides the point, since the Rfc was invalid because of the participation of so many WP:MEAT editors, I disagree with his conclusion, and firmly hold that based on the same policies and guidelines, notably WP:BURDEN, this Rfc should have been closed in the opposite way. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC) To explain: WP:BURDEN says that if you want to add material (in this case a category which was absent for 3 years before that) you must show a convincing consensus, not 7:2. Then there is the inherent problem with applying sources which relate to Jews as a group to each and every individual in a category, leaving the category in almost all cases without a source. And lastly the logical fallacy proven by ad absurdum, because by the same token all Jews and indeed all of mankind would be of African descent, since the first man came off the tee in Africa! Debresser (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Commented out as per admin suggestion

Furthermore, the RFC was on Jewish Descent, not on all cats with Jews. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC) I saw the discussion from a few years back, but no final decision was ever made. Everybody involved simply stuck to their guns and reverted each other continuously. You also tagged every one of the editors who participated in that dispute and most of them did not show up. Lastly, you have no real evidence that there was any meat puppetry involved, only conjecture. And again, even if your allegations were true, it was an !vote wherein strength of arguments overrides majority opinion. Wikipedia would be a very dangerous place if the reverse were true.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC) On that note, how do I know you and Sir Joseph aren't working together?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC) You don't. Just assume good faith. Debresser (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC) You're first round of reverts came after edits which in their edit summary had "Per WP:ANI"." Your second round of reverts came after you participated in this thread. So please don;t tell me (above) "I've only reverted you once"! You are simply edit warring against all warnings and discussions. Debresser (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) @Eggishorn: Making sure you are aware of this. The allegations of meatpuppetry should not be dismissed lightly. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC) I am copying and pasting what I put above in response to Debresser (talk): Semitic Peoples are "Middle Eastern;" Jews' customs/traditions are "Middle Eastern," and those who join the Tribe, "converts," and their descendants, thus intersect and become (increasingly with further practicing generations, like the Abayudaya), Ethnoculturally "Middle Eastern" by sociopolitical association. The strengths of the arguments won the survey, not the number of people, as the deciding editor noted. Your claim of WP:MEAT is irrelevant because the arguments presented to keep the categorization of Jews as being of Southwest Asian/Asian descent (as a People) were stronger than those to remove. In addition, I disagree with your analysis of the various editors who participated in that survey and RfC, myself being one of the editors whom you did not mention; for example, User:Musashiaharon has made multiple edits on various articles and talk pages, several discussions of which I have also participated, so your criticism of that editor is invalid; User:Bubbecraft's made many edits before the Rfc/survey, perhaps they got exhausted with editing after the discussion? According to their page, they are a retired computer programmer—perhaps they want to do other things with their life? Again, your criticisms of those two editors are invalid. Todah Rabah. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC) You claim that Jews and converts to Judaism become ""Middle Eastern" by sociopolitical association" Isn't that a ludicrous statement? I am an American Jew and if I were placed in the ME, I would not in anyway shape or form appreciate the culture or the sociopolitical environment. Furthermore, even if I magically have Middle Eastern culture, I am still not of Middle Eastern descent. Ivanka Trump is not of Middle Eastern descent. It really is as simple as that. Are Jews from the Middle East? Some are, some aren't. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) In reply to Jeffgr9/ Just because Bubbecraft and Musashiaharon had previous edits, doesn't mean they weren't brought to the Rfc by somebody off-site. I am sure at least Bubbecraft I had not met previously, although I have been active in Jewish areas among others for a long time, although I am not sure about Musashiaharon. As I explained above, the closure was a first close by a non-admin, made in complete disregard of major Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:RS and WP:BURDEN and in spite of the logical fallacy involved. In any case, there is no doubt that even if the closing editor felt somewhat inclined towards the way he closed it when the vote was 7:7, there is no way (!) he would have felt the same way had the vote been 7:2 (or even 7:4 for that matter). Debresser (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Sir Joseph, your being and identification as a Jew means you do have an appreciation for a Middle Eastern culture/sociopolitical affiliation—because that is what being a Jew is. Throughout Jews' Diasporic history, Jews have faced racism, especially in Europe, for sociopolitically affiliating as Jews whether they "passed-for-European"/"passed-for-white" or not, because they were Jews, a Semitic People. Ivanka Trump, as a Bat Sarah, intersects Jews' heritage and her own personal family's ancestry. Ivanka Trump's conversion serves as her "joining the Tribe" and sociopolitically affiliating with B'Nei Y'Israel and thus, a Middle Eastern Ethnocultural group. Ivanka Trump's children, who are both halachically Jewish via her conversion as well as ethnically Jewish via their father's ethnic Jewish ancestry, are being raised Jewish, are thus, in addition to their ethnic Jewish heritage, are being raised with Middle Eastern Ethnocultural and sociopolitical affiliations—That is how Tribe, "race," and Intersectionality work on a global scale. To deny Jews' "Middle Eastern" heritage/origins would be to deny the core of Jewish identity. Debresser, you are violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith by literally doubting well-intentioned motives of Bubblecraft and Musashiaharon for participating in the RfC and Survey discussions. The strength of the arguments for "keep" were sound, you just do not want to accept the verdict. Please move on, Achi. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Jeffgr9 your claim is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I don't have an appreciation for Middle Eastern culture or sociopolitical affiliation. Regardless of how you want me to feel about the ME, or how you want Ivanka to feel about the ME, or even how we have a relation to the ME because we're Jewish, the one thing we're not, is of ME descent. You can't label ALL JEWS as being of Middle Eastern Descent. I am not sure why you are having trouble separating religion as a whole, and labeling geography of a person. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Both of you are rehashing the same arguments from the RFC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Introduction_to_survey. I strongly suggest you read through it again, as most of the fallacies you are repeating were addressed there.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Where is the fallacy in me saying I am not of Middle Eastern descent? You trying to push your fringe view is troubling. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Sir Joseph, it is not original research, it is just fact. Jews are not just a religion, Jews are an Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group, a Tribe, and in some senses/time periods considered a "race." Your dis-affinity to the Middle East is on you, Achi, but you are thus in denial of your core Ethnocultural heritage. If your ancestors descended from Israelites, you are of Middle Eastern, Semitic, Southwest Asian, North-Northeast African, Afro-Asiatic, "Oriental," etc. descent. If you or your ancestors joined the Tribe, or "converted," then you/your ancestors have pledged allegiance to a Middle Eastern-originated concept/group/identity. Race/ethnicity/culture matters in this particular case, and Jews are attached to one another throughout the Diaspora via ancestry and/or core Ethnocultural customs/beliefs, whether you personally care or not. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) You really don't get it I guess. The category of Middle Eastern Descent is on the genealogy of a person, not his religion. While my religion may be based on the middle east or whatever, my genealogy is not. I am from the US and if we want to go back more generations, then perhaps you can add Europe. But I don't magically become Middle Eastern, and Ivanka doesn't automatically become Middle Eastern. Nothing you say about Jews being an ethnoculture, etc. is negated. Jews are indeed from the Middle East, but that is as a whole people. Individual Jews are from wherever the heck they are from. "My ancestors pledged allegiance to a Middle Eastern originated...." is just plain poppy-cock. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) @Sir Joseph: First off, your response is belligerent and highly suggestive of non-NPOV (see below). Second, I answered your question in the survey. Refer back to that.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Where is the belligerence in my post? I'm just getting sick and tired of having to explain myself. I am not of ME descent, most of the Jews in the world are not of ME descent. The fact that the Jewish religion comes from the ME is irrelevant. A descent category is based on genealogy of the person, not the religion or ethnicity. Furthermore, you claim it as a fact that I am from the Middle East, can you prove it? Again, this category is DESCENT, can you prove Ivanka Trump is of ME descent? Do you have her genealogical records? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Sir Joseph, I never claimed Ivanka Trump's ancestry to be of Middle Eastern descent, I said she intersects Jews' Middle Eastern heritage by having joined the Tribe. She has become a part of a Middle Eastern/Semitic Ethnocultural group; her husband and children are of ethnic ancestral Middle Eastern descent by being ethnic/halachic Jews. You are also mixing up genealogy and geography. Your ancestors, as you said, came to the United States of America from Europe, in all likeliness because they were Jews and had to escape; it is also most likely that the ancestors of those ancestors came/were brought to Europe from Israel (via slavery, exile, or other migrations) because of their identity as Jews/Israelites. Your core Ethnocultural heritage is Jewish/Israelite, and thus Middle Eastern, although part of you certainly intersects European and "American" (which is a debate in it of itself) heritages as well because of the amount of time your ancestors spent in those places and the people with whom they likely mixed. At the end of the day, however, you are a Diasporic Middle Eastern individual, as are most Jews in the world. Ivanka Trump is not a Diasporic Middle Eastern individual (as far as we know), but she intersects with Diasporic Middle Eastern individuals and their heritage, has joined the Tribe, and has self-identified as an individual who will uphold Middle Eastern Ethnocultural traditions/customs/beliefs, and therefore Ivanka Trump has "become" more "Middle Eastern" than previous to her joining. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Do you not get how what you're saying makes no sense? Descent is a genealogical category. Were I Catholic, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Your claims that I am Middle Eastern and Ivanka becomes Middle Eastern is ludicrous. I want to bold your statement so that everyone can see it. I feel dumber just for reading that. Please don't respond to me anymore. I don't want to continue this conversation with someone who clearly has an axe to grind. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Sir Joseph, now you are just deliberately ignoring all of the points I have made. And your insult/personal attack against me has been noted. And what do you mean "axe to grind?" What are you talking about? You said you were Jewish—do you deny having Israelite ancestry, as in descending from those who originated as a People in the Levant/Middle East? Or do you deny having ancestry of those who joined the Tribe, or "converted," to Judaism, in which case they began practicing a Semitic culture/tradition/belief system/practice? You have not successfully refuted what I have said here, nor in other related discussions, so what is your "axe?" Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC) In addition, Catholics are members of a religion, unlike Jews, who are an Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group, and a Tribe, with ethnicity and cultural customs/traditions/languages/religions/etc. intertwined. Islam, on the other hand, does pass down through generations, and does have a Semitic/Arab core to the origin of Muslim culture, and so discussing Islam would be more comparable in the tribal/racial/Ethnocultural sense, as they have spread Arab/Semitic culture as well. But with Islam, Muslim Empires spanned over several continents/countries and mass-converted hundreds of millions of non-Semitic peoples, just as Christian Empires mass-converted hundreds of millions of non-European peoples. Jews and their kingdoms did not mass-convert hundreds of millions of non-Semitic nor Semitic peoples; instead, Jews were enslaved by the Romans, Assyrians, Babylonians, dispersed throughout their Empires, had to endure many exiles and pogroms as well as several genocides throughout history, and yet kept their core genetic and Ethnocultural heritage wherever they went (see, Jewish diaspora). Instead of comparing "religions," you should be comparing Tribes/Ethnocultural/Ethoreligious groups, or at least ethnic groups. [Arab/]"Palestinians" and Arabs currently have and "Middle Eastern people of Arab descent," "Asian people of Middle Eastern descent," and "Middle Eastern people of Asian descent" connected to their pages; Jews, a Semitic ethnic group, as Debresser noted, should share the same type of ethnic/regional categories, such as "Middle Eastern people of Asian descent" and "Asian people of Middle Eastern descent." Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Jews can't be compared to Arabs, Arabs are from Arabia. Do all Muslims have ME descent? Do all Catholics? Again, you can't say that all Jews are of ME descent. ME Descent is a geographical cat for a genealogical fact. It has nothing to do with religion or culture. Stop trying to say that if someone converts to Judaism they magically get ME descent. The category of DESCENT has zero to do with Ethnoreligous groups, culture, tribe or religion. The only thing the DESCENT category is worried about is WHERE DOES THIS PERSON COME FROM. You trying to say that all Jews should be in this cat because all Jews share a religion is conflating two separate things. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 1. Sir Joseph Jews can be compared to Arabs, Jews are predominantly from the region of Canaan, just north of "Arabia." 2. You just contradicted yourself—Before you were concerned about genealogy relating to descent, but now you deny Ethnoreligious groups their stake in having a genealogy/ethnicity. So, which defines descent to you—geography (national residence), or ethnic descent (genealogy), or both (national and genetic origins)? 3. I also said that Islam was not completely comparable to Judaism because of Muslim Empires' mass-conversion of hundreds of millions of non-Semitic Peoples. 4. Who is talking about magic? One's sociopolitical identity as it relates to Tribal designation is a real and important issue that keys into the concepts of race and ethnic identity—you seem to either not understand that, or deliberately ignore it. A just like Jews, Native/Indigenous Americans do not lose their ethnic origin/identity, even if they leave/disaffiliate from their Tribe; at the same time, one who joins a Native/Indigenous American Tribe and brings up their children within that Ethnocultural context, are virtually adopted into that Ethnocultural group, and thus intersect their previous identity with that of that Native/Indigenous American group. The process of "conversion" is not the same for Jews as it is for Christians, and is only slightly similar to that for Muslims. People who join the Tribe and become Ben Avraham or Bat Sarah (convert to Judaism) not only adopt Middle Eastern customs/traditions/language/culture/etc., but they also become adopted by the Tribe, as per the need for minyan, a minimum number of Jews, to authenticate the "conversion." That is the difference between a gentile becoming a Jew (and thus becoming Ethnoculturally/Tribally "Middle Eastern"), and the issue of Rachel Dolezal, who did not receive a formal initiation into the Black American community to have the right to identify as a Black American. Ivanka Trump, the Abayudaya, and Ike Turner (if not previously having any Israelite ancestry), became Jews and thus, in part and intersecting, became Ethnoculturally/Tribally "Middle Eastern." Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Seriously, you're just talking crap now. I will stop responding to you, my tolerance for bullshit has been far surpassed. I guess that's my Middle Eastern culture kicking in. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Sir Joseph, no, and no need to cuss. You do not have any valid arguments against what I have said, nor answers to the questions I have asked. Also, just to add a source to this conversation for good measure as to the inter-relatedness of various Jews' groups and to other Semitic Peoples via the Y chromosome: "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East". Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC) @User:Jeffgr9 Does a religious converts’ genes change, the minute they adopt their new religious belief? Nope. Doesn’t matter how much you want to be (or want someone else to be) a descendent from the Middle East, if you trace your ancestral blood line back and you end up in the kingdom of Bavaria, you are Bavarian. Sorry to piss on your fantasies, there. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC) The pathways and decisions new members of the Tribe make are directly related to their newfound and intersecting heritage--they would be treated as other Jews who are of ethnic Jewish/Middle Eastern descent (which is the majority of Jews, mind you). The racism new members experience, the changes in their cultural and behavorial lifestyles, the language they now adopt (Semitic, Afro-Asiatic), all contribute to new members' shift in identity. In part, Tribally/Ethnoculturally, new members and their lineage begin to intersect and embrace a Middle Eastern lifestyle through Judaism. Thus, again, Tribally, new members intersect Jewish heritage, and their descendants--if they carry on tradition/culture--bind closer and closer to Jewish/Middle Eastern culture and become, in part and by sociopolitical affiliation/association, Middle Eastern themselves. NOTE: Some Native/Indigenous American Tribes have practiced the same type of "adoption" and consider the same sentiment regarding their new members. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC) "You don't. Simply assume good faith". Then I suggest you take your own advice instead of trotting out conspiracy theories like this every time you don't get your way. As for myself, I've been an editor here for more than a decade and my resume covers a wide array of topics, most of which can be seen on my user page. However, I'm not in my 20s anymore, and I don't have the amount of spare time that I used to. Now I only participate on articles that are on my watchlist, this included. And I ignored you because the survey outcome was clear. You were not at liberty to make those reverts, but did anyway. Moreover, you invented excuses as to why they should be reverted (in other words, you lied) and attempted to game the system. Those are all hallmarks of POV editing.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC) @Debresser: Again, sources WERE provided. A ton of them. Anyone who looks at the survey can clearly see that. You are being dishonest.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Copy/pasted from below. Both Debresser and Sir Joseph are aware of what the RFC and survey outcome were on this category, along with what it entails for the existing structure of related categories. However, both have persisted in edit warring (see 1 and 2), reverting and antagonizing users who restored the appropriate categories in accordance with the survey outcome (see 3 and 4), made blatantly dishonest claims in justifying their reverts (see 5, the opening survey statement, and its closure), and attempted to game the system to implement their preferred changes (see 5). Sir Joseph is, as of today, attempting to the restart the same discussion by phrasing it in a slightly different manner. This is disruptive editing and, at least to me, suggests that neither of these users should be editing on topics relating to Jewish descent or ethnic identity, as they are both clearly incapable of leaving their personal feelings out of it. I think a topic ban for both editors is an appropriate solution, but I'll leave that up to you. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Debresser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sir+Joseph&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Musashiaharon#February_2017 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffgr9#Please_stop 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=766856773#Category:People_of_Jewish_descent The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Nope. Sources relate to the group, not to categorized individuals. In any case, I am not really interested in repeating my arguments. I just mentioned the most obvious of them. My issue here is WP:MEAT influencing of that Rfc in a way that tipped the scales against all policies and logic. Only now do I understand how that came about. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC) So if people, of whatever opinion, continue to discuss the merits of the Rfc in and of itself, I am going to archive that as off-topic. Sir Joseph is not doing me avy favors with pushing his point of view, even though I agree with him, because that is simply not what this thread is about. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Now that User:Sir Joseph and User:Debresser have taken this to the Admin noticeboard, continuing a chain of other such disruptive activities during which they brought no new ideas for the category under consideration, I'd like to note that they have indeed been edit warring and disruptively refusing to accept the survey closure and the closure of the review on that survey closure, which they initiated. Not only that, they have been harassing the discussion closers and admins (as you can see on the survey closure review), as well as anyone who disagreed with them on this topic. As you can see from my talk page, after I made just one edit in compliance with the survey closures, Sir Joseph even impersonated an official Wikipedia warning box, apparently trying to scare me. When I complimented Sir Joseph on the realism of his work, Debresser joined in, warning me not to revert any more, without even commenting on Sir Joseph's deception. All this, even though all I was doing was following the conclusion of the twice-closed survey! In light of their disruptive editing, attempting to game the system by reopening and re-disputing the closures and forum shopping; I request that Sir Joseph and Debresser be censured and blocked from editing these topics until they cool down. I regret that it has come this far, especially since they are my brothers in faith, but this lengthy rehashing of the same exact arguments as the !votes in hopes of the right admin rendering a conclusion favorable to them is wasting our time. Let's move on to something new. Musashiaharon (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Please spare us the "brothers in faith" theatrics. The idea that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is a falsehood that should not be foisted on the encyclopedia. How can the descendants of a convert to Judaism be of Middle Eastern descent if that convert to Judaism has nothing to do with the Middle East? We are talking about people. Perhaps their culinary preferences show a Middle Eastern influence. But the person is not of Middle Eastern descent. Bus stop (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Please WP:AGF. I really do consider them my brothers. It's the core of the Torah, and is particularly stressed in Chassidus, and we meditate on this every day during the morning prayers. All this really is painful to me. Your argument, Bus stop, is a straw man that was already discussed in the survey and again in the review on the survey. I don't want to repeat old material here. Musashiaharon (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Musashiaharon—you say you "don't want to repeat old material" but there is no old material for you to repeat. If a person never visited the Middle East, and they were not born in the Middle East, and neither their mother nor their father nor any other of their ancestors derive from the Middle East—then they cannot somehow be of Middle Eastern descent—not even if they convert to Judaism. We deal with facts in an encyclopedic context—not wishy-washy notions of shared identity. A WP:Category is never a grouping together of dissimilar people. It is a grouping together of people with shared characteristics—in this case derivation from a geographical location known as the Middle East. You can't bend those rules based on any notions relating to religion because Wikipedia is an entirely secular enterprise. We don't entertain ideas that involve the blurring or the bending of objective facts. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC) While this section's subheader is clear enough, discussion has sort of meandered. I don't think it's productive to rehash the arguments found in the RFC. You can either drop this and hold a new RFC or, if you don't want to wait that long, clearly restate why the RFC and review were tainted by sock or meat puppetry (or other disallowed behavior) and hold a !vote on that basis, not on arguments based on content. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Just skip everything from my first post in this subsection till this point. Perhaps some admin will want to simply archive it all. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) @Debresser: 1. That is precisely what my sources addressed. 2. The only side that cited any RS or policies at all (save for WP:BURDEN, which was answered by User:Bubbecraft) in either the survey or RFC is the keep side. That you refuse to consider the possibility that the remove side's arguments were weak and unconvincing only supports my point that you shouldn't be editing in this area. Both you and Joseph are far too emotionally engaged on this topic to edit neutrally, at least from where I'm standing.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Lastly, starting a new RFC will require the author to bring new, previously unconsidered arguments to the table. They cannot simply rehash the same arguments from the previous RFC, as that would be WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If a new RFC is started, I will ask an admin to make it a survey instead so as to keep the focus on sources and policy, rather than majority opinion.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

":Or maybe not everyone has the time to edit as much as you do? I do this in my spare time, which I have very little of these days."

I have to agree here. Several users with active accounts may only make a few edits per month, and others may be inactive for a variety of reasons. In my case, I have been a rather active editor for more than a decade, but I have spend times on wikibreak to take care of personal or family problems. Last year I had a couple of deaths in my family (close relatives), health problems of my own, and dealt with tedious paperwork on quite a number of occasions. I spend a few months with little or no online time. I don't doubt other users have faced or continue to face similar problems in their everyday lives. Dimadick (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Is it my imagination, or has this gigantic thread devolved into content disputes and personal issues? It no longer seems on track and bears little resemblance to an ANI-relevant discussion. Plus people are uncollapsing content disputes that should not even be on this noticeboard. Can someone either bring it back to whatever issues needed dealing with by an admin and deal with it (and re-collapse the content disputes), and/or close the thread and let the content disputes be hashed out in the normal venues? Softlavender (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not your imagination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried twice to comment out the whole content discussion, but somebody removed that twice now. In any case, the WP:MEAT issue is a serious one and not at all content related, and this thread should definitely not be closed. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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