Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive931

User:Markscottwhistler and Michael J Palumbo

• Markscottwhistler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michael J Palumbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was first alerted to this at a request on COIN by NatGertler. User:Markscottwhistler is an SPA whose edits have almost exclusively been on the article Michael J Palumbo. They seem to be insistent in inserting a bunch of references into the article including a particular book chapter. After being requested multiple times to come to the talk page, they wrote this saying that they are being bullied and that they want the media to see this. The main problem here is that they are edit warring on the article even after being asked not to and repeatedly reinserting the promotional content. So I am asking the community to preferably explain to the editor about our policies or take any action (if necessary). I don't want to explain myself as it seems they consider me a bully and I prefer disengaging myself to de-escalate the situation. Would be glad if someone can guide the concerned editor. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Lovely references. The book Markscottwhistler is edit warring to include, lest we overlook it, is one which he wrote. Also, I'll give you a topic: one of the documentaries he listed, 'The Fabulous Life of Billion Dollar Wall Street Ballers', is neither a documentary nor fabulous. Discuss. Katie^talk 12:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why are we wasting our time? Obvious case of NOTHERE:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5] (Reviews his own book, comparing himself to Orwell. Cringeworthy writing.)

EEng 03:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently we're not. Indeffed by Orangemike. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

User: 209.140.33.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edits to the talk page of a Trump-related article that is under discretionary sanctions appear to violate BLP policy and are trolling.[6][7] Could an administrator please block the IP or semi-protect the page. TFD (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• For those administrators sensibly avoiding all mention of the man, these are references to a parody meme that Trump may be a paedophile, since "that's what people on the internet are saying". Anyway, constructive content nil. Blythwood (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• It's a well-known sock. Blocked, edits reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked another sock. Every IP or new editor post to that talk page for the past month has been from the same sockmaster. Page protected for a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Yaysmay15

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

---

Seems like the two-day block imposed on him wasn't enough, as he didn't call for a reasonable consensus and is insistent on churning out problematic edits on Philippine history-related articles. Can anyone look into this mess pronto? Blake Gripling (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked two weeks for continued edit warring. Details on the editor's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Ntintishe

@Ntintishe: has been creating self-promotional articles on himself and his musical recordings for almost a month now. Could an admin look at the situation, and take appropriate action? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yup, take a look at this blatant vandalism and articles like this. Clearly not getting it, clearly not here to do anything but promote himself or his associate. Blythwood (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Looks like someone might need more than a timeout judging from their edit history, clearly not here to help articles. The article on himself looks to be made up with no sources to back it up, hence why it's up for deletion.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - In future, WP:COIN is a good place for this. We have admins watching there, and at the very least, someone would have been able to speedy in the correct order to avoid having to have four unnecessary AfDs. All that being said, could an admin therefore, please just speedy and salt the following:

• Kanya Graeme (rapper)
• Kanya Graeme - already deleted, SALT only
• Just a Matter of Time (Mixtape)
• Roughwork - already speedied, SALT only

That should solve a lot of the issue. MSJapan (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the input, I didn't even think about COIN, but that would probably have been a better venue. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyeditors Needed-Flagrant COPYVIOs spotted

Sorry, don't have more Wiki time allotted today, so am yelling for help. A page Needs some careful editing and source checking teamwork in an otherwise well written page, and I'm overdue already elsewhere. The Susquehannock related history narrative in History of the Native Americans in Baltimore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) demonstrates verbatim use from one or (I suspect strongly) several of its cited sources. Specific test, google:

"the Susquehannock made peace with Maryland and ceded large tracts of land to colony. "

That string matches exactly a phrase in the 5th or 6th citation, IIRC—and I'm certain other sentences do as well. Gutting the narrative would be a crime, but wholesale copying like this needs checked-and the originating editor at least warned!

Good VIO hunting. // FrankB 17:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Earwig says the only word-for-word text is direct, attributed quotations. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That quoted passage noted by the Earwig comparison could (and therefore should) be rewritten in editor's own words without loss of the meaning and value in the article. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Meh, go ahead. It's perfectly ;egal / within guidelines as it stands, so we can all concentrate on 'important stuff.' :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Legal it may be since fair use in the US is fairly strong. I strongly question whether it's within guidelines as Wikipedia:Non-free content doesn't just require that use is minimal but that there is "no free equivalent". If the quotation serves no purpose then I don't see how it meets the no free equivalent. And this is 'important stuff'. Not so much because it violates NFC, but because with such a pointless quotation, there's a strong risk that someone is going to come along and simply remove the quote marks without sufficiently rewording the sentence. I'm fairly sure this happens a lot because it's fairly easy to spot that the quoting is dumb, but it's far harder to understand WP:Close paraphrasing and WP:Copyrights and what you need to do sufficiently resolve such concerns. Even if you do understand it, actually fixing it sufficiently is quite difficult if you're going off existing text, this is of course one reason why it's generally a bad idea to copy content and then try and reword it so it'll probably be better to start that part from scratch from someone who has some understanding of the subject matter. (One of the reasons why I'm not touching this.) I once dealt with a clearly copyvio article, where most of the text was copyvio albeit with a fair few minor changes here and there. Exploring the history, I found out it started of as an article full of quotations (by an American student IIRC). At some stage, someone "helpfully" (in good faith obviously, but actually ended up wasting a bunch of time) removed most of the quotations marks with only minimal rewording of the text and then people made minor changes here and there not aware I'm assuming of the underlying problems. I ended up having to remove most or all of the article, including all the wasted editors time in between. Yes in that case the article was clearly a major copyvio and NFC violation from the beginning but it highlights the underlying point namely when people seem pointless quotations they are most likely to simply try and fix it by removing the quotation marks with some minor rewording thereby turning what may be a borderline NFC violation to a clearcut copyvio. Also I don't see how you can rule out copyvio (especially close paraphrasing) concerns simply by using an automated tool. There's a good reason why our copyvio team who do great work do not just rely on automated tools. (Notably book sources may not be available.) One thing which clarification would be helpful is the phrase cited above. I did search for it, but all I'm getting are places that seem to be copied from here e.g. [8] [9] none of which are cited in our article from what I can tell (thankfully). Is there some source that isn't showing up in my Google result perhaps because of copyright differences (e.g. Google Books) or was there simply some confusion over this phrase? Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Gamerdude2000 - Multiple Issues

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

---

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

---

Hello,

While monitoring today I noticed that User:Gamerdude2000 modified the American English article and removed a large portion of content on the article without an edit summary. Shortly prior to this, another user had made the same edit which is why I was questioning the edit and seeking more information. I issued a Level 1 warning for removal of content without an edit summary. During that time, the user removed the content again. I issued a Level 2 warning at that point in time. The user responded at his talk page here and gave a reason for the removal. In an attempt to gain consensus and assuming good faith, I started a discussion on the articles talk page. Gamerdude2000 then removed my article talk page and received a warning by another user, who also restored the talk page discussion. The full history of the conversation on the users talk page is here. The user also threatened to attempt to get both myself and Oshwah banned, not assuming good faith. The user also mentioned prior edits and interactions with admins, which led to a question of whether there are multiple accounts for this user. I am unsure if action is warranted or needs to be taken considering the interactions, however I wanted to post it here so that an administrator could review the situation. There was also concern from the user about this on my talk page.

-- Dane2007 ^talk 02:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007 - You did an excellent job assuming good faith and trying to draw a discussion to reason with the editor. I'm pretty sure that we're getting our leg pulled though ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see where this consensus he was claiming to have was achieved... He's either trolling, or lacks a decent comprehension of what wikipedia's policies are.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a need for this to be at ANI. Gamerdude2000 has been warned for the edits. Things have been explained (repeatedly) and the user's article edits have stopped. Any lack of AGF is not actionable, and any possible incompetence has not reached actionable levels either. The possibility of multiple accounts could be IP edits or one or more abandoned accounts. I asked the accounts question since it was a brand new account but claimed to have had previous Wikipedia experience. I was not suggesting socking, and unless any previous IP or account is blocked there is no block evasion. Refusing to discuss the edit on the article's talk page is not a problem as long as the editor doesn't continue to make the edit. So, either newbie mistakes or trolling. I have my opinion on which, but nothing else needs to be done at this point. Meters (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dance2007, Oshwah, and Meters: Gamerdude2000 just PM'd me on Freenode, probably mistaking me for an admin. ^{I'm not, to clarify.} I sensed a deep lack of self-reflection, and an unwillingness to apologize for his or her behavior. Of course, this doesn't bode well for a successful future editing Wikipedia. However, he or she did repeat a promise to not edit again, so I'd agree with Meters that perhaps no action is need at the moment. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

After we disagreed twice, I said I would go to the mIRC channel and ask for and admins opinion. And that no further edits would be made. I kept to that. I only edited out the talk because I wanted the discussionb e be had on my talk page, which is where the edit started. I admit I started losing my cool when I was threatened by being blocked. And then with them calling me a troll one ach others talk page I felt like I was being ganged up on. Either way, I'm doen with editing that article. I said I would stop and did. I didn;t appreicate being trolled on Dane's page. Especially by the guy that said he was going to block me after I stopped. ( ihonestly stopped the talk page comment originalyl because I wanted it handled on my talk page where this all began, nothing more) I think this all could of been avioided or not gotten out of hand if both sides (myself included) would have been more respectful. Gamerdude2000 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

First time i've dealt with this situation here, perhaps ANI was not the best course of action, I was really doubting whether or not I handled it right or whether something else needed to be done. Understood, Meters. And on that note, I withdraw this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Move to re-open - I'm starting to lean towards WP:NOTHERE - especially with edits like this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Low grade disruptive editing since December 2015

The following discussion is closed. 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 nitin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I encountered this user's recent edits using STiki [10], [11]. However, as can be seen I used Twinkle to roll back these edits. Then I checked this editor's user contributions and noticed unhelpful edits that were reverted in the "Domestic worker" article [12], [13], [14].

So on their talk page, I decided to warn the editor that their repeated test edits are actually becoming vandalism for which they can be blocked or banned from Wikipedia and to please cease this type of editing [15]. And, I could not help noticing this talk page is comprised of sections that seem to demonstrate this person's editing is, every now and then, in contradiction to Wikipedia policies and guidelines since December 26, 2015. There are no sections exhibiting conversations with other editors. It consists of speedy deletions of their articles, a block for disruptive editing [16], and a number of messages about unhelpful editing and perhaps a copyvio. I call this person's editing low grade disruptive because the unhelpful edits have been noted only intermittently according to the talk page.

So then I chronologically went back several more articles (in a row) edited by this user and these edits had been reverted by other editors [17], [18], [19], [20] - (totaling about seven edits?). There appears to be a pattern here and I don't know how far back it goes or what to make of it. This person currently has a little over 222 220 edits and 15 deletions [21]. Although I have some years on Wikipedia, I am hoping some editors with more experience than I, with this type of situation, will know how to handle it - because I do not. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I call this person's editing low grade disruptive because the unhelpful edits have been noted only intermittently according to the talk page.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you very much for this report, Steve Quinn, and for warning the user. Another thing you can do to check up on an editor who seems problematic is take a look at their block log; there's always a link to it in the row of links near the top of a user's contributions page. Turns out they were blocked for disruptive editing by User:KrakatoaKatie in April this year.[22] My impression from looking at their editing is that they mean well, but simply don't have the competence to be editing Wikipedia. Also, since they have never edited their talkpage, they may be be one of those sad cases who don't know they have one, and have never seen all the warnings. They have created nine articles that have been speedy deleted, often per criterion A3, "article that has no meaningful, substantive content" — not a good sign. I have blocked them indefinitely, because with their unresponsiveness and lack of improvement after 8 months, it seems to be time. Too many users' time is unfortunately being wasted. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC).

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

BridgeFan101 (talk · contribs)

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

---

This user says on their newly-created userpage that they edited under an account, I Love Bridges, that is now banned. I saw them on the new user log, reviewed their contribs, and thought they were typical for a newbie, so I welcomed them. I then noticed that they had created a userpage (apparently while I was editing their talk) and saw...the problem. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

He's been blocked by Bongwarrior. Adam9007 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Issues with User:NeilN

The following discussion is closed. 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 having problems with the User:NeilN. The discussion can be seen on his talk page (he has deleted some of the discussion). He made some claims on one of the admin boards about my editing, so I went to his talk page to see if I could address his concerns. However, he was very reluctant to engage, despite my best efforts to be as helpful and collaborative as possible. He did eventually mention that I was "using the Daily Mail to source anything that remotely comes close to or used to support gossip, innuendo, conspiracy theories is not on". I explained to him that I was using it to source the basic uncontroversial facts that were also covered by other sources, and which had nothing to do with gossip and innuendo. Nonetheless, I removed the Mail shortly after another editor objected. I informed NeilN that I had quickly changed the content in response to another editor's concerns, which is surely in accord with collaborative editing. NeilN, however, simply removed my message from his talk page. I see he is an admin and so surely should conduct himself better. He has made false assertions and then refused to engage when this has been pointed out to him. EDIT: I have tried my best to engage with NeilN with good intentions, but he doesn't seem to want to reciprocate, merely casting vague and false assertions without engaging in the substance. TradingJihadist (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue with this "new" editor started here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_Eyes_Needed_on_American_Politcs --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN isn't obligated to engage with you. What do you think requires the use of admin tools in this dispute? Frankly I think NeilN is correct in complaining about the smell of dirty laundry. 24 hours and you know your way around Wikipedia exceedingly well (BLPN, DYK, ANI...) EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess he isn't obligated, but I'm pointing out less than perfect behaviour from an admin, and that's why I brought it here as suggested by Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances_by_users_.28.22administrator_abuse.22.29. TradingJihadist (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang The smell of a sock is very evident. Secondly, not every user is obligated to interact with users. This is nothing but a content dispute. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not even involved with the article, either as an editor or admin. I just stated the warnings TradingJihadist received were justified. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey look! I found a sock! Boomerang. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Can we talk about the discussion on hand and not side issues? If that is important, then it would be better to make a separate thread elsewhere. TradingJihadist (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, see WP:SCRUTINY --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• This is very, very clearly not a new editor. GAB^gab 00:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Clearly not a new editor, WP:BOOMERANG applies. –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang. As NeilN pointed out (more than once) other editors had explained the situation on the OPs talk page. There is no reason to repeat that again and again. MarnetteD|Talk 00:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• The editor in question needs to stop being cute. This charade they are trying to pull off is fooling no one. --Tarage (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• I call BS. I agree with the above that there's something fishy going on here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang Can someone put the Socks back in the drawer.... --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang I have reviewed the linked pages and discussions and I see nothing wrong with NeilN's conduct. The warnings you were given are valid. NeilN has no duty or requirement to respond to you - and you appear to be quite resistant to anything he says as it is. I have dealt with NeilN a number of times and his contributions and comments are valuable, well intentioned and only meant to help editors and improve the encyclopedia. I've made mistakes which he has pointed out and helped me with. Any comments or criticism should be appreciated, not shot down with a defensive response as I perceived from your replies. Here at Wikipedia we assume good faith. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang I have dealt with Neil on several issues and he has always been nothing but helpful and helped point me in the right direction. I also smell dirty socks. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang - How To Get Blocked: Create a sockpuppet account and then use it to file an ANI complaint. Refer to the socking as a "side issue" and say, "If that is important...". Yeah, it's important. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Talk:Rafael Bienvenido Cruz

The following discussion is closed. 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:173.206.204.201 has twice made this legal threat at Talk:Rafael Bienvenido Cruz - Arjayay (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by zzuuzz Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find much substance to the ranting. They lost me when they started talking about BUSH PSYOPPS. As ever, someone may want to check the article just in case. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) blocked the IP address. --Yamla (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Left a note on the IP talk page. --Yamla (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat to User:Anomalocaris

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

---

2601:185:8201:fb97:6c93:1fed:890e:9735 had given legal threats to User:Anomalocaris at User talk:Anomalocaris because of adding unsourced content at Distinguished Intelligence Medal. (This looks serious, I should probably read WP:LEGAL first before replying to him) Link NgYShung ^huh? 10:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No, take it to the legal team (AN/I is the appropriate venue). Don't try to deal with this yourself. I'll see if I can find someone good to ping. Note; the ip editor is threatening a defamation law suit against Anomalocaris if they don't cease and desist. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but at least I've know more. Update: The user also harass User:Anomalocaris here. And also there is a little bit of irony right there. NgYShung ^huh? 10:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The correct IP is 2600:8800:7387:4A00:CC8F:6889:AE63:3C4B (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and he is now on a one-month hardblock for NLT. That kind of guy will do it again from the next IP he uses, so it may be whack-a-mole for a while. Katie^talk 10:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• Says he knows a lot about "the JFK assignation" [23]. Could be interesting. EEng 19:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • JFK shot first, you know! GAB^gab 16:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

AFJP FAN 420 and hoax editing

• AFJP FAN 420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:AFJP FAN 420 was blocked for 24 hours earlier this month for inserting a hoax into Douglas R. Docker. See this ANI thread for more details. I've since dug deeper into their edits and found several problematic diffs that appear to indicate they're intentionally inserting hoaxes or removing factual information from the article while making occasional constructive edits to appear to be a good-faith editor at first glance.

1. There was a sentence indicating that a research article was written by the article subject after 2 years of research and work for the IBMP (Istituto per i Beni Musicali in Piemonte). AFJP claims the article does not mention this and removes the information [24]. I've reviewed the source itself, and it clearly does indicate he was contracted by the IBMP for two years. Email me if you'd like to see a copy. It's in Italian, but you can easily throw it in Google Translate to confirm.
2. He introduces the information that an album was released to "universal acclaim" [25] but later removes the information he himself added as unsourced [26].
3. He removes properly-source material claiming the reference is invalid [27], but the person who originally added it claims to have access to the source. I haven't been able to access this source, but given that AFJP asks for a scan in the edit summary (which he would have if he read the source, right?) and the above issue, I think this is another example of removing properly verified info for little reason.

Some history on this article: After severe BLP issues which have since been revision deleted, the page was semi-protected on July 12. From July 11 to July 13, AFJP makes his first 10 edits (after being registered since April) and then immediately jumped into editing Docker's article. Even the first 10 edits were related to Docker in many cases (see [28], for instance). This is either the biggest coincidence of all time or this user is likely the same person as the various IPs which inserted BLP violations to the point that semi-protection became necessary.

Given their history of inserting hoaxes and now strong evidence that they're removing valid information and reverting their own edits to appear constructive, I believe the editor should be either topic banned from edits related to Douglas Docker (broadly construed) or outright indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.

Note that I'm not taking any administrative action myself due to my involvement with ticket:2016073010003808. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to address these points. I have endeavored to clean up this page as it had (and has) many issues, particularly to the citations and references.

1. I checked the referenced source and there is no mention of it being associated with any work with the IBMP. As such, I removed that mention, but put in as much information on the article as could be found through the linked sources (and even added another source myself).

2. I did originally add that the article was released to universal critical acclaim as a good faith edit, citing favorable reviews. However, after this was pointed out as being wrong, I removed the offending part myself, immediately, in an effort to repair any damage. It seems odd to me that removing something that was found to not meet standards is somehow proof that I made the edit in bad faith.

3. I searched for any reference to this release using WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, including Non-English sources. There were no reliable sources indicating that this release exists, and in fact a thorough search shows that this album only appears in reference to Douglas Docker

Overall, I believe I have made only constructive edits to this page, only to be constantly harassed by the original author of the page, who by his or her own admission has a connection to the subject. There has not been a single word removed which was not accompanied by an explanation as to why it was removed, and in each instance it was for not meeting Wiki standards. I have not made any hoax edits (although the page is besot by them, through a variety of sources). Also, I have attempted to communicate with the author User: Janthana on both the article's talk page (blanked by this user at certain points) and his or her talk page (discussion also blanked), who then refuses to engage in meaningful discussion and merely dismisses any change to the page as vandalism. I will refrain from editing the page if that is deemed necessary, but I am making edits in good faith to try to bring this article to Wiki standards, and would urge others to do so if I cannot. Thank you for your time! AFJP FAN 420 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking right at the source for the IBMP information which you removed, and it very clearly states the connection. The previous ANI thread already went over the past instance of adding hoax information, and the evidence there was convincing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is nothing in the linked reference that mentions the IBMP. It is a one page bibliography that in no way implies a connection with the IBMP (not to mention that it ia published by the Waldensian Cultural Centre Foundation to begin with). As for the previous ANI, I do not see any concrete conclusions being reached. Can you please point out any unconstructive edits I have made? As far as I can tell there was 1, which I quickly reverted when I was told it was inappropriate. I honestly feel persecuted here for things that are beyond my control. I also wonder why you singling me out when other editors are running rough shod over the page without any apparent oversight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFJP FAN 420 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinion needed re: canvassing issue

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC on adding parameters for relatives to Comic Book Character Infobox, the initiating editor, Fluffyroll11, appears to have canvassed other editors in an impermissible way, with talk-page advocacy such as "Hey if you want to help bring back the comic book characters relatives field in info boxes comment [at this RfC] [29]. "[C]anvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." This resulted in at least one editor joining the discussion to support the initiating editor.

The initiating editor believes most of his August 4 canvassing was neutral and that the RfC is not tainted and should continue. Other parties are unsure what would be proper: continuing; ending discussion at the point just before canvassing and asking for a close; ending this RfC and starting it again after an appropriate length of time; or some other solution.

It's been a generally genial discussion, and the parties have agreed to ask for an admin opinion. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I would like to point out in her message when she says "This resulted in at least one editor joining the discussion to support the initiating editor." isn't accurate. Still at this very moment none of the people that received what you could consider a biased message have commented and were all rectified and replaced with the other message I used. The one editor that she pointed out receive this unbiased message just like Tenebrae did (and she was opposed to it the topic being discussed) and the editor she is referring to received the same message as she did and just so happened to be in support of it. So the RfC itself has not been tainted. Also I sent them messages which is not a violation of anything to get more people aware that the discussion was taking place as with most of these most people don't realize it is taking place until after it is already done over so I wanted to make sure people who were interested in this topic of comics could have their voice heard if they so desired. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not inaccurate. Here is his message to Coquidragon [30] at 21:26, 4 August 2016, and here is Coquidragon's support [31] at 22:08, 4 August 2016 — his first edit since May, which seems unusual. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess it might be unusual my lack of postings. Well, blame my wanting a vacation from the internet. I've been trying to cut down my hours. Sorry for the confussion this might have caused. --Coquidragon (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: How is that unusual? They didn't even receive that message that you accused me of canvassing with which I changed to match the one this person received since it was unbiased and is the same message that you received. So did I canvas you or does that not count since it resulted in opposition? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Trying to follow your convoluted sentences is nearly impossible. I thought we had collegially agreed to have an admin look at the RfC and your posts to other editors and render an opinion. I thought I wrote something accurate and fair, and indeed, my follow-up gave diffs supporting my statement. I don't think admins want to see arguing on this page when we have requested essentially a favor. Keep in mind that it was your actions and your words that brought us to this point. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Note: @Tenebrae: since you mentioned Coquidragon you were required to notify them of this ANI thread. I have done so for you. Please remember to notify all parties if you mention them in the future. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

My apologies to Coquidragon, and thank you for letting me know. I thought the rule involved solely the editor whose behavior was brought to discussion. I'll know better going forward. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Cameron, Thanks for letting me know. Like I said in the original RfC, the message left in my page was neutral. I was invited to leave my opinion in an issue and I did.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: There you go again with the insults sorry I forget periods sometimes. I am not trying to argue just point out that your adding your opinion to something trying to state it as fact which in reality isn't what it should be stated as what happened. You left out one diff the one were she says in response to your canvassing accusation. here is Coquidragon's statement against canvassing accusation: [32] at 22:35, 4 August 2016. Wonder why you left that diff out? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

May I remind Fluffyroll11 that I thought we had agreed to ask an admin to look at the talk-page discussion and Fluffyroll11's history and render an opinion as to the canvassing issue? Asking for an objective third-party opinion was the mature way to handle it. Getting defensive and creating drama by arguing your case as if we're in a court blow everything out of proportion. I was confident enough in my point of view that I was happy to let an objective third party decide. I would suggest that only someone who thought they did something wrong would not be OK with letting an objective third party decide. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I have no problem with a third party doing all that just wondering when that's all going to happen? Also don't really understand the purpose of your comment seems kind of immature seeing me pointing out the inaccurate unnecessary statement you made in your original post that if you look above coquidragon also said. so I don't understand what the point is with your above post. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I'm afraid I genuinely don't understand your convoluted second sentence. What are you trying to say? Break it down, please, into short, declarative sentences. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment 1; The one editor (that I can identify) who has joined the discussion received a neutrally worded request for comment from Fluffyroll11, this user is Coquidragon they have confirmed that it was neutral both on the talk page of the rfc here, as well as on this thread as posted by you yourself under "not inaccurate".
• Comment 2; There were canvassing violations as mentioned by Tenebrae and as far as I can see these were rectified with hours of them being posted. As such, and as there is no evidence yet that anybody who had received a biased message has participated, I would consider that portion of the issue resolved.
• Comment 3; It also appears that the RfC is actually going to favour Tenebrae in that the only new postings have been two further opposes, one of which has been made partly due to the canvassing vio (which has not yet been resolved and may itself be grounds to dismiss the RfC as at least one editor's opinion has been influenced by external forces to the actual RfC, here). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the analysis and I'm glad someone is making it, even if not an admin. Regarding "rectified with hours": Hours is plenty of time to taint an RfC. If I may, here's an an anecdote from my earliest days on Wikipedia: I was nominated for something, and I let fellow editors know. Within minutes, an admin, very kindly and politely, told me that what I was doing was impermissible canvassing. I went and erased every single notification — again, within minutes. And admins ended my nomination since even minutes was considered irreversibly improper.

I'm honestly not sure why all the hubbub here. We all agree that impermissible messaging was done, to one extent or other. All we're trying to do is ask an admin to give an opinion as to whether that messaging tainted the RfC or not. This seemed like something simple and straightforward. There was no need for it to get convoluted. -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae, alright I understand, yes, I imagine that they did indeed taint the RfC as did the public posting of the canvassing on the RfC itself (for different reasons and the latter not being your fault in any way, just, that it did affect it). I recommend scrapping it for the time being, if you'd like I can suggest a couple admins who might be able to weigh in on the discussion? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think scrapping it and returning to the issue in a week or so is sensible. I don't know if there'd be agreement all around on that. At this point, I'm not sure if I were an admin that I'd want to get involved. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I think the only person who was tainted by it was the person you last opposed it since it was right below the conversation as that should have been posted elsewhere but, I think scrapping it might be extreme since this is the most in depth and far this conversation has been able to go. I would like to hear the final decision but, if it is scrapped does that mean we can return to it from the start in a week? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Fluffyroll11, I am in no position to make an administrative decision on the topic only give my recommendation. I would consider that two things have impacted on the legitimacy of the RfC, firstly the canvassing with the non-neutral posts (despite the fact that they were amended by yourself within hours) and secondly the public announcement of such a violation (on the RfC page no less). Yes, it would be possible to start a new RfC a week from now per Tenebrae's recommendation which I second. In this instance the current RfC would be void, as must be the case, and a new RfC would be opened a week from now. I would recommend that for the second RfC that no canvassing, even neutral, would be the go. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: If it is neutral then it isn't considered canvassing right? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Fluffyroll11, it's still canvassing but it's acceptable canvassing. A canvass vio is when the canvassing is done in an inappropriate way, usually to influence the editor to vote one way or another. A short comparison; "Would you be interested in joining the discussion" <- acceptable canvassing vs. "Would you please join the discussion and vote in favour of the proposal" <- unacceptable canvassing. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, you can't just canvass people who will agree with you. I have found that it's been acceptable to notify editors under some concrete, objective criterion ... say, the last 10 registered editors who edited a particular page, or in this case the last 10 editors who commented on any subject on a talk page. I've done this even when I knew a particular editor here or there disagreed with me — I still notified them. It's the only just way. I gave 10 as a round number, because if you go with 9 or 11 say, it looks like you're deliberately avoiding or including some editor, respectively.

Of course, the best thing to do is not to canvass at all. To the best of my memory, I've only done it when a significant amount of time has elapsed without anyone comment. Unless that's the case, I would advise no canvassing. RfCs run 30 days generally, and if you mount one per instructions, it automatically notifies the relevant group, in this case "media". --Tenebrae (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The trouble I saw came after I posted this link to a prior discussion on the same topic. Shortly thereafter, Fluffy notified editors who supported his proposal. He did not notify editors who opposed until after I pointed this out. Although he's said he's been active for a couple years, Fluffy's edit history goes back less than two months and he seems new. It's very unlikely he knew anything about canvassing prior to this, and he tried to fix the error as soon as he understood it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring, block evading conspiracy theorist IP on Talk:Electronic harassment

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

---

Could we please have a bit of further help with the edit warring, block evading conspiracy theorist IP on Talk:Electronic harassment? _{^{The TRUTH is out there!}} Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Per this comment: This issue will go on for a long time. Even if I get killed in Wikipedia, others will re-start the conversation. It wont be me though. I will be doing something where I am still alive. Jed Stuart (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC), I suspect the "truth" will attempt to repetitively bludgeon itself, at least short/medium term. Semi-protecting talk pages is unfashionable, I know, but... Begoon ^talk 14:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

But semi-protection of the talk page has been requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Begoon ^talk 14:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I am being falsely quoted there. That is part of a conversation at a user talk page not from the Talk page of Electronic Harassment. see:[[33]] I have said nothing at the EH talk page for some time now. And you falsely characterize me as bludgeoning the truth, which I am NOT. Someone did turn up there recently doing that, but it has nothing to do with me. And once again I am thrown up here for criticism and someone turns up to close the topic before I get a chance to comment. 3 times at ANI now. see: [[34]] Jed Stuart (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I probably should have notified you that I had quoted you here, for which I apologise. I did not start the discussion, so I, perhaps wrongly, assumed the "ping" would suffice. Again, my apologies if that was wrong. I quoted you as you are obviously familiar with the topic, so your view that more disruption was inevitable seemed relevant. I closed the thread because the requested help had been provided. I had not accused you of anything here, or "criticised" you, the matter had been dealt with, so leaving the thread open seemed unnecessary. --Begoon ^talk 08:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I did get a notification of being mentioned. I am in the internet slow-lane that is all. I don't have any problem with the protection. You were not so polite to me on your talk page though when I challenged you about closing the NPOVN topic you said "Jed, please drop the stick, as you've been advised to do by many experienced editors and admins. I consider this matter closed, and further attempts to WP:BLUDGEON it will be unwelcome." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jed_Stuart&oldid=732162898 Those sentiments are a continuation of the attitude of the editors who now control Electronic Harassment, that is that I am sea lioning, bludgeoning, pushing fringe theories etc all of which has just been a cover for not really addressing the NPOV issue in my opinion. Your accusing me of bludgeoning there seemed to me to indicate that you are in league with them and not an uninvolved party. There has been a lot of 'gaming the system" around that article in my opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sea-lioning about being called a sea lion. How meta. 2607:FB90:A60:193A:4144:C7B5:DAC4:4F24 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Walled Garden/POV-forking by Shaan Lollywood

I hate using AnI but Shaan Lollywood (talk · contribs) has created numerous redirects and articles in a short span of time that appear to attempt to create alternate/duplicate sets of articles that already exist on Pakistan topics. I would create a list but they are too numerous. They don't respond to anything posted on said article's talk pages, or on their talk page. I'm not the only one who has noticed. This was brought to the AiV noticeboard [35] and at least one of the articles for deletion via AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Azad_Jammu_and_Kashmir_Council. Several editors have also nominated various articles under WP:A10 as duplicate content. Myself included. I saw the recommendation on AiV to bring it here so I am.--Savonneux (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council was a copyright violation, so I have deleted it as such. Other contributions need to be checked for further copyvio. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• I have asked them to pause their article creation and wait for the outcome of discussion here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• It seems Legal status of Junagadh State is also a copyvio [36], and Political status of Hyderabad State per [37]--Savonneux (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• I've deleted those two, and had already issued a one-hour block as they were continuing after I made my request for a pause. But as there are multiple copyvios, I think it needs to be upped to indef and I shall do so now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And considering the rapid rate of article creation, there must be lots more copyvios there - surely nobody can write new articles in their own words at that rate. Unfortunately a lot appear to be sourced to jstor, which I can't access and can't check myself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Specifically Provincial_constitution_of_East_Pakistan and Political status of Junagadh State need to be checked, but they are already up for WP:A10. Most of the others are stubs. They also created 70 some odd redirects of questionable quality.--Savonneux (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows no violation. Ayub407^talk 11:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it will if they're copied from subscription-only sources that are not freely-available, will it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's correct - or some forum posts, as the latter was - a direct copy of http://defence.pk/threads/junagadh-dispute-kashmir.37308/ - which I tagged, and you speedied. It's often easier just to google a paragraph or two. Also, a lot of the talk pages for the user's created redirects seem to be just 'buckets' for POV soapboxing, like [38]. --Begoon ^talk 12:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Shaan Lollywood is a sock puppet of Zeshan Mahmood (talk · contribs). All these pages can be deleted as G5. DrKay (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Persistent OWN behavior despite multiple editors' warnings

With heavy heart and great regret, and after much discussion, I must ask on behalf of multiple editors for action regarding User:BaronBifford, who has exhibited persistent, and indeed defiant, WP:OWN at Superman. Perhaps this would take the form of a few weeks off Wikipedia in order to break what may be obsessive behavior. Perhaps a topic ban of some length would be in order. His behavior is not only disruptive, but at least a couple of us fellow editors are genuinely concerned for him, given his voluminous, nearly SPA pattern of editing.

After a talk-page consensus goes against him, he slow-motion edit-wars by biding his time and then sneaking in edits that other editors have rejected. Here are examples where another editor's edit-summary links to discussions he ignored:

• [39]
• [40] after his edit-warring here
• and [41].

Here are examples of more slow-motion edit-warring:

• this on July 23 following
• this on July 22.

He frequently goes against Project guidelines and MOS. Edit summaries that mention but do not link to relevant talk-page discussions, which are now linked to on this page, include:

• [42]
• [43]
• [44] with discussions at Talk:Superman#"In other media" section and Talk:Superman#Publication that show no consensus for BaronBifford's unilateral changes. He initiated additional discussion at Talk:Superman#Radio, TV, and movie adaptations that also resulted in no consensus for his changes. Other examples of time-consuming and pointless arguments to go against guidelines and MOS include Talk:Superman#Cover date vs actual publishing date and Talk:Superman#Image staggering.

Other examples could be given. What's perhaps more troubling is that multiple editors have worked patiently with him to no avail, only to have him denigrate anyone who works on the article other than himself. For example:

• [45]: "What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia?"

• [46]: "I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work on this article… How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers."

• [47]: "I'd rather conform to how the professionals do it then the sloppy work of Wikipedia's amateurs!"

• [48] "You haven't put any dedicated effort into research or refining the content of this article, or an other superhero article. The superhero articles of Wikipedia are generally shit, because they are written by fanboys who don't care for presentation, thorough research, or the perspective of the layman."

• [49]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article."

• [50]: "I don't think you have the same kind of perspective I have developed over the past nine months."

But I think the biggest concern comes out of a statement that shows he just doesn't get the idea of consensus and guidelines / MOS:

• [51]: "the only reason he is opposing me is that I've failed to gain consensus with everyone else and that my proposed changes are not consistent with many other articles on superheroes." Well, yes! That's exactly right. And he somehow refuses to accept these basic tenets of Wikipedia.

Or as he puts it another way [52]: "The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors."

If you go to the Superman talk page, you'll find multiple editors trying to talk him about this, going back to at least May 31 [53]. You'll find much regret in my voice in many posts, including one my last, at Talk:Superman#CC of notice just placed on an editor's talk page. But nothing any of us has said has had more than a very minimal impact. He regards us as impediments to his article. Or as he puts it [54]: "I am disappointed by the constant obstruction of other editors who take no intense interest in the development of this article." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As another one of the editors who has tried to help the user in question understand why this can't continue and why we need to discuss these changes and then being accused of knowing nothing of Superman I unfortunately have to agree with this. I have chosen to edit the article when it's needed IE: vandalism, incorrect info posted. As I believe Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is without users working as a team. The article has had several consensus done and the article has been written per those. I take no satisfaction in having to take it to this point. The user seems to be under the impression that they are the only editor who should be editting the Superman article and they are the know all be all of the subject. The larger concerns for me are the constant ownerish attitude and the constant dismissal of other editors edits or opinions or consensus. My largest concerns are comments like

[55]: "The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors." And [56]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article." And comments to other editors like [57]: "WarMachineWildThing, looking at his contrib history, is mainly interested in professional wrestling. How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers."

Those types of comments are just a small sample. While I do edit wrestling articles more often it's because they seem to be vandalized alot I was in the wrestling business for 10yrs so yeah I have alot of intrest in it. But I have a Superman collection that was started for me over 40 years ago before I was born, I had the ONLY Superman Tribute Truck that was featured on the Chris and Dana Reeve Foundation website because Christopher Reeve was on the hood, and Im known as Superman by the kids in my area because of the Charity work I do, so I have alot of interest in Superman and knowledge. But the user seems to think because I don't edit the article obsessively my opinion doesn't matter. If you look at his edit behavior of his last 200 edits I would say 90% are on the Superman article alone which is a concern for me as I am concerned for the person behind the screen of their ownerish and obsessive behavior that has caused them to think that what they are doing is right and don't understand how this behavior is harmful to the article and themselves. Sorry for the long windedness but I agree this user needs to understand this is not acceptable behavior and should be given a "time out" Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae has been exceedingly patient and afforded BaronBifford every opportunity to demonstrate a sincere and consistent willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors. Unfortunately, despite the generous patience of Tenebrae (and several others like WarMachineWildThing & myself), BaronBifford has repeatedly ignored or outright mocked consensus-building and consensus itself. He has lashed out: telling an editor to "piss off"; criticized the "generally shit" quality of superhero articles; called others "squabble editors"; etc. What concerns me more, however, is when Baron repeatedly expresses what he sees as his right to edit certain content, even in the context of general opposition to his proposals. Here are just a few recent examples of Baron's general attitude of ownership:

• "What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia?"
• "I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work"
• "I have yet to hear anyone else put any critical thought into this."
• "Where did you get your bizarre notions?"
• "I'm the only [one] doing anything constructive on this article."

At the very least, I hope an uninvolved admin will seriously onsider a Superman topic ban for a time, though I defer to Tenebrae's greater experience in suggesting the best course to move forward. Levdr1lp / talk 03:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think Superman is within the scope of any ARBCOM sanctions so it wouldn't be just a uninvolved administrator but a consensus here for a topic ban. As of right now, everyone is posting talk page comments that show possible incivility but it would be helpful to show to see the actual edits and the actual RFCs and the actual discussion with the editor that are evidence said problems. This reversion may or may not be appropriate but I can't tell from the way BaronBifford edits what is the actual problems here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• • • I've given links to examples of his contentious edits at numbers 54 to 59 above. And the issue here is WP:OWN, so if there's a more appropriate venue than this, I'm sure we'd all be glad to move the discussion there. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The main arguments against my edits are that they are somewhat inconsistent with some (but not all!) other articles on superheroes. They refuse to take into account the specific nature of the history of the Superman character. There are also a lot of ad hominem attacks against me. They want me to pass every little structural change I make through a committee, a process which is extremely slow (how many days did it take an admin to respond to this ANI thread?). My detractors say I refuse to "collaborate". My rebuttal is that they fail to collaborate. I've numerous times asked Tenebrae and others to participate in my research. I even offered to buy reference books out of my own pocket to encourage him. But his meaningful contributions have been minimal. He has made corrections to my grammar and formatting, and he has mostly been correct in that regard. But he has contributed nothing insightful to the article, which is painful after all the time and money I have expended. He likes to flaunt his credentials as a professional editor (of what I don't know), but what I want is an historian. Tenebrae does not come off as an historian. A sincere fanboy, yes, but not a serious scholar. I once had a perspective similar to his, in fact. I too am a massive superhero geek. But my research into the details of Superman, the commercial and creative talent behind the character, has changed this perspective. As the knowledge in an article develops, the structure of its content must mutate. The traditional bindings the he placed on this article deforms its body.

The biggest point of argument here is my wish to place a summary about the movies and TV adaptations of Superman alongside the information on the comic books. This seems logical to me, because there is so much cross-pollination between the books, TV shows, and movies that I cannot imagine not describing it holistically. This is how the professional books have addressed the topic, including Encyclopedia Britannica and all the reference material that appears in the Bibliography. Only here on Wikipedia do we have the notion that Superman is "primarily" a comic book character and that his movies and TV shows are a footnote in its history. BaronBifford (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hardly a footnote, given we have entire articles such as Superman in film and Superman (franchise), as well as Category:Superman films and Category:Superman in other media, among others, so his claim is without merit. Organizing all this under an "In other media" section as the MOS has described for years is sensible and as per longstanding consensus. As for the Britannica article, one paragraph placed high in a short article is no different from what we already do in mentioning other media in our article's lead.

Refusing to follow MOS consensus when multiple editors on the talk page say they agree with the guidelines is contentious and WP:OWN-ish and in no way part of the collaborate effort for which we strive. It's like trying to edit with Donald Trump. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here, I agree with Tenebrae. The MOS has been consistent on pretty much every single fictional character article: the initial source is the main point and then films and TV shows and the like are separate. There is zero reason why Superman alone should be completely reorganized differently than literally every single other piece of work out there just because you personally like the way Britannica does it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

First, a college student with the hubris to refer to himself as a scholar when I've published and edited many articles about comics — though I'm not going to out myself — shows someone without the perspective that he might have gained by examining the more than 100 comics-related articles I've created in 11 years here. I don't know what criteria he uses to denigrate someone with the ad hominem label "sincere fanboy," but I would say his obsession with Superman as shown in his edit-history makes him the pot calling the kettle black.

In any event, his slow-motion edit-warring and his constant arguing with other editors over settled guidelines and MOS is exhausting and WP:OWN-ish. His idea of collaborating is to go on the article talk page, tell us everyone is wrong and that only he is right, and then to go back to the article and make contentious changes. I ask: What should be the community's response to this behavior? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you mistake dedication for "obsession"? I hear Wikipedia is struggling to retain editors and here you are trying to shut down a hard-working editor who is neither a troll nor a vandal.BaronBifford (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want to listen to other people here and ignore the fact that this version has been built upon years of general consensus and views, then you're more of a hindrance than a help. Respect the fact that your suggestions are contentious and put forth some effort in convincing others to agree with you on them. Just because you most strongly believe in something doesn't mean that's the way it should be done. Again, if you only edit the Superman articles and only want them structured a certain way, propose that but realize that other people are concerned about how all fictional character articles are designed and in that vein, Superman is just a single article or series of articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page fully protected two weeks. In the mean time, RFC's should be started or WP:DRN should be used to help settle content disputes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I like to think I got a lot of shit done up to this point. Four steps forward, one step back — not bad. BaronBifford (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish your comment above showed some indication that you see the problem, but you're just being self-aggrandizing. That's not actually helpful.

The ball is in your court, BaronBifford. As the admin suggests, please start an WP:RFC or start a detailed discussion at WP:DRN. But I think the issue is larger than specific edits, and three other editors here agree: Your WP:OWN behavior needs to be addressed. Because if you don't initiate discussion and simply return to contentious editing in two weeks, honestly, that's no good for anyone and it's no good for Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the comments he left above he doesn't care what anyone thinks or the fact that because of all of this the page is now locked down and he's going to continue with this behavior. When you can't work with others or follow the consensus that has been agreed upon and continue to do what only you want, that's not good for anyone. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Having read that talk page, I can't escape the conclusion that this is a bit of a mixed case. On the one hand, I find that I agree with a great many of the copy edit observations BaronBifford makes there, and I feel he presents his views generally in a very cogent manner. That said, there are also some clear issues with WP:OWN here, as well as a fair bit of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT with regard to said behaviour--which of course is not uncommon in such cases. Now, not meaning to backseat admin Neil here, but I don't think I would have opted for page protection in his place; if indeed there is one editor moving against consensus (as seems to be the case), then I don't think it's in the best interest of the article and share the skepticism of others that it will resolve the core issues.

That being said, Neil's approach does give BaronB an opportunity to back up and re-assess his behaviour here. DRN is an excellent way to iron some of the differences out and hopefully find some unexplored middle ground. But it can only work if all parties come to it open minded. And with regard to Baron I feel that can only happen if he accepts that, on this project, he must pick his battles and that, no matter how right he may feel he is on a particular content issue, it is vastly more important that editors embrace the principles of collaboration and consensus than that they stick to their guns on this or that particular issue; the former might make one little passage more reliable, but it's the latter that makes our collective content vastly more reliable in the aggregate. If he cannot comport himself to this principle, this is likely just not the project for him to contribute his time to, and we can expect this problem to not only persist on the Superman article, but indeed to follow him wherever he takes his editorial interest. That would be a shame, as I think he has strengths as an editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snow Rise's assessment here. BaronBifford, regardless of the quality of your contributions, continuing to persist in behavior consistent with WP:OWN or rejecting collaboration with other editors is not going to end well for you or this project. Please be mindful of how you conduct yourself. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Might I propose a topic ban relating to Superman themed articles? That would seem to be the most appropriate response to this situation, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This was archived by a bot though resolution has not been reached and BaronBifford has not said what he will do when page protection has ended. Restoring for now. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It's now now just about three days until the Superman page protection expires at 17:28, 12 August 2016. Despite my entreaties on that article's talk page, BaronBifford has given no indication that he will modify his behavior. Perhaps the solution would be a loose topic ban, to adapt Midnightblueowl's suggestion: He does not edit the article, but submits proposed edits on the talk page. I'm sure many useful edits would be obtained, and more experienced editors could protect the integrity of the article. May we get thoughts on this, particularly from an admin? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I'll make an effort to use the Talk page more. And I won't try to merge Other Media with Publication history without a consensus from Wikiproject:Comics. When the article unlocks I plan to revert the article back to my last edit, in which I had added the images of Fairbanks, Breitbart, and Lloyd. BaronBifford (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't do that. I'm certainly OK with the images you suggest and I imagine other editors are as well. But the rest of your edit here contains highly problematic things. Reverting to that edit without discussion is exactly the kind of thing this ANI has been about. If that behavior continues, the article is just going to get locked again and that does neither it nor any of its editors any good. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me what the problems were. This will be my last edit on the Superman article for a while. BaronBifford (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Craig Zeeman from Payson

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

---

Craig Zeeman from Payson (talk · contribs) has been banking a lot of old SPI pages and user pages of old socks. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Same editor just reverted this report. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like their mission in life is to revert edits by Bbb23 - it has to be somebody's sockpuppet. --bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they are a sock of ABCForKidsLover234 (talk · contribs). Craig Zeeman from Payson (talk · contribs) blocked now BTW. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

IP vandal at WP:RFPP

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

---

174.23.161.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has continuously been reverting a report at WP:RFPP. Can an admin go over there at have a look. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Small issue relating to creating new article

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

---

I tried to move User:Penbat/Guilt trip to mainspace but couldnt as guilt trip already existed as a disambig page. I renamed guilt trip as guilt trip (disambiguation) but am still unable to move User:Penbat/Guilt trip to mainspace because of redirect guilt trip. Can an admin kindly delete guilt trip. Thanks. --Penbat (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated impoliteness, baiting and uncivil behavior

The following discussion is closed. 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, after several days of being hounded by editor, Thomas.W I'm asking for help from administrators. This editor very directly pointed out to me on my talk page why he believes I should not be editing a certain page and despite my attempts to have a civil discussion with him it quickly devolved into him posting rude and condescending comments. When I went to his talk page and asked him to please keep his tone civil when addressing me and other editors on Wikipedia (I pointed out no less than 3 instances in the last 6 days when he had been rude to other editors on his own talk page) he then replied rudely again to me and essentially told me that those other editors he had been rude to had it coming. I believe that by ignoring the civility code Thomas.W is not following the 5 pillars. He also appears to be hounding me with talk page comments and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a similar pattern existed between him and other editors. Wikipedia should be a place where editors should not be freely abused and disrespected by more senior editors. Would an administrator please take appropriate action so that Thomas.W corrects his behavior and conforms to Wikipedia's standards of acceptable behavior. Thank youMonopoly31121993 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is almost funny, since I'm the one who is being hounded, not Monopoly3112193. The background to it all is that Monopoly posted totally irrelevant material on Germans, an article that, as explicitly stated in the first sentence of the lead section, is about the ethnic group, not about people who live in Germany regardless of ethnicity and nationality, as the material that Monopoly added to the article is. Not only once or twice but three times, the third time several hours after I posted a message on their talk page page asking them to stop, and explaining why they should stop (the whole discussion there can be found here, including Monopoly's final comment telling me to "get a life"). They then posted a swiftly closed complaint at WikiProject Editor Retention (the whole disscussion can be seen here, including my response to it), followed by posting on my talk page today (the whole discussion can be seen here, including my response to it), and now complain here too, while I haven't done anything since last posting on their talk page, other than posting one response to their accusations at WikiProject Editor Retention and one response on my talk page. And now here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The term "Germans" seems ambiguous. Maybe change the article title? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Moving the article should be discussed on the talk page of the article, and the same goes for changing the scope of the article as Monopoly has repeatedly tried to do. But there has been no discussion at all on the talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • I find the OP here to be the more problematic editor, as Thomas W. is not the one he is edit warring with. In fact. Thomas W. does not appear to be an active editor at all on Germans. Monopoly311... is the one arguing with other editors, and should be directed to WP:CONSENSUS. If an editor has a content issue with several editors, this sort of dramaboarditis is not going to help. Collect (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, with both editors getting irritable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• • I don't understand how this became about my revert of an edit to a specific article? This was about uncivil remarks to other users (NOT JUST ME) by this editor. The 4th pillar of Wikipedia which is to be civil. In the past week alone this editor has sent the following messages to other editors: "Are you doing machine translations from Greek to English? "The Jaguars what it means" has no meaning at all in English, it's just gibberish. If you don't know enough English to communicate with other editors here you shouldn't edit the English language Wikipedia... " , "Thanks for the link to WP:Verifiability and your advice, which would no doubt be of benefit for a new user, but I have had this account since 2006, have made ~38,000 edits, check sources every day and know the rules better than most. I also know what the established practice here is, unlike you obviously, so I need neither your advice nor your links." These aren't even the comments he made to me, they're just ones I found on his talk page. I sent these as examples to him in a message on his talk page reminding him to be civil (he then crossed out but has since reverted this, he also told me that those other editors had it coming). All I was asking for here was for admins to take a good look at whether he was being civil and if they didn't think so, remind him to be civil so that he doesn't offend or intimidate other editors. Editor retention is a huge problem for Wikipedia and if editors interact rudely and aren't civil people won't want to contribute.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User: JLOPO

User JLOPO has after going by 10 months with only on edit, come to my talk page wrongly accusing me of adding spam links, I then deleted the links (which i moved around but didn't add), and explained to him to carefully check the edits of users before accusing them of wrongdoing. He has then threatened to get an admin to ban me while undoing the edit he requested in the first place and stating he wasn't even talking about the article he mentioned before on my talk page.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to see any additions of external links (which aren't refs) by yourself ShadowDragon343, so I would be keen to see what JLOPO was referring to. Although a little full force, I don't think JLOPO has done anything actionable here -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I was thinking of another user.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLOPO (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Back in October 2015 ShadowDragon343 created Clermont chain of lakes, a perfectly reasonable article about some lakes. A few days later, JLOPO tagged it for CSD-A1 (diff), which was inappropriate and was promptly declined. JLUPO then tagged it with a bunch of inappropriate cleanup tags (diff) and then tagged it for BLP sources, which is nonsense (diff). All of this was promptly removed by other users, as it should have been. JLUPO also warned ShadowDragon343 for NPOV (presumably on the lake) (diff), which again is nonsense. The user interaction analyser tool shows no other interactions between the two (report). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Then he basically does nothing for 10 months, returns, issues a 'spam' warning, deletes a huge chunk of content SD343 is working on, immediately replacing it again, unchanged. Next he wanders over to SD343's talkpage, issues a bizarre series of baseless, contradictory warnings and threats, explaining he's been 'monitoring' him. Then this ANI is started, he says "oh, sorry, wrong user", apologises, and deletes the warnings... Perhaps JLOPO can explain this sequence a little better? --Begoon ^talk 12:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

User BjornBriggs posting promotional material

An account has been created in the name "Bjorn Briggs", apparently solely for the purpose of promoting promotional material with antagonistic edit summaries (BjornBriggs (talk · contribs))

[redaction]

See here for diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_form_cricket&diff=prev&oldid=733836680

I removed the material and he immediately reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_form_cricket&diff=prev&oldid=733972737

I left him a warning and he removed it and left an aggressive personal attack in its place: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BjornBriggs&diff=prev&oldid=733977638

This is an open and shut case. A ban is in order, it may be worth considering whether a sockpuppet investigation and IP ban and we have had similar problems like this before with users such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Murraylastmanstands1

Thanks Py0alb (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree mostly with the above report - this is a clear cut case of a SPA edit warring and a block may well be in order shortly. However, why is the section "Last Man Stands" even in that article? It's currently written in a tone which can hardly be described as a neutral point of view and is verified by a single, primary source (which, coincidentally is the only source in the entire article). I'm going to remove the entire section, it's not notable and really doesn't have any place on Wikipedia. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I dont think anyone should be banned for their first three edits. The reasonable thing to do here is note that a CEO of a company feels that the company is inaccurately portrayed, then make sure that the content is accurate and remove anything that is promotional - and then engage civilly with the editor who posted it and explain our rules and policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed, nothing but promotional editing + a personal attack on the editor who warned them. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC).
• Though I know I may well face the fiery wrath of Bishzilla (_ROARR!!), I disagree with you about this, Bishonen. BjornBriggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not given a {{WP:COI}} notice. There was no discussion on the article's talk page about this. There is no current {{WP:SPI}} about that editor. Shouldn't they be able be given a chance to argue their case? Pete "Cricket Tragic" (google it) AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I don't see why they can't do that in their unblock request, Peter. I don't like this kind of thing. But feel free to unblock and speak nicely to the user about COI and the like. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC).

• Bishonen is right. Promotional editing is promotional editing whether it's intended that way or not, and I don't understand why we ought to be tolerant of it. BethNaught (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• If I'm understanding things correctly, Shirt58 is not advocating tolerance, but is simply wanting to make sure we've made our best efforts to explain to the user why they can't do what they did, since at the time, no COI or personal attack notices were on the user's talk page -- although for what it's worth, based on the user's comments on other pages and his own, he may not be too receptive. Also I see that a COI informational template has been placed on the user's talk page now. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 16:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds on this. Before I got far enough in to see Bishonen's action here, I was prepared to propose a three-month block, expecting some might view that as extreme. Like Bishonen, I particularly do not care for the trollish PA, and I'll even go further to say I doubt very much, from the evidence provided by their contributions to date, that this editor is equipped to change their approach and become a productive asset to this project. That being said, as a principle, and looking at indeffs as the kind of mechanism deserving of a high level of pro forma process, I question if it is appropriate to throw the ban hammer at the situation before even approaching the editor about reforming their behaviour--even if this effort were intensely unlikely to bear fruit. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Damage done by declining AFC

The following discussion is closed. 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 previously complained to LaMona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) about her rejection of the draft A.T.M. Wilson at WP:Articles for creation on grounds of notability.[58] This was ignored.

More recently LaMona rejected Anthony Charles Robinson on grounds of notability.[59] The comment was:

• The references need to be about him, and substantially about him. Entries in lists do not support notability, nor do quotes nor short mentions. A number of the references do not support the text they follow. You should begin with the content of sources and create the article from that, rather than creating the article and then shoe-horning in references that don't have the same content.

There are 32 references in that declined draft; not all are for the purpose of establishing notability. Nevertheless, some are press articles about awards that Robinson received such as:

• Lifetime Contribution award for small business mentor Tony Robinson

Some are articles on Robinson from a national body, such as National Enterprise Network:

• National Enterprise Network gets behind #MicroBizMattersDay

Some contain a short interview with Robinson, such as this on the UK Government site:

• New investment for business mentors

There are entries in lists, such as his entry in the 2001 New Year Honours List, when he received the OBE "for services to Training and to Small Firms":

• Order of the British Empire

But anybody who complains that a reference to an Honours List doesn't imply notability really needs to get a grip on what WP:Notability means.

The stated purpose of AFC is to filter out drafts that probably won't survive a deletion debate. I do not believe that any experienced editor who reads the 32 references in that rejected draft would possibly conclude that Robinson is not notable.

I am now seriously concerned by the damage being done by LaMona to new editors who are producing acceptable articles that are being rejected on such unreasonable grounds. She maintains that she can hold back articles "until a higher quality is reached". That's not the purpose of AFC - it has never been the intention to place a single editor in a position to reject a draft because of their opinion on article quality. I believe that administrative action is needed to insist on her adhering to the purpose of AFC; or failing that, to topic ban her from the area of AFC altogether. --RexxS (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have notified the AFC wikiproject, which IMO should be a first step in resolving this issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, this has been a somewhat systemic problem with AFC. The bar over there is often set extremely high, far higher than the new page patrollers patrol for or AFD deletes at. They do a good job of filtering out the COI and promotional submissions, but often fail to address the good articles properly. This case looks egregious, but it is coming from the AFC culture of declines and extreme standards. The culture there is the problem, and this is a symptom. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The bar should be higher than NPP. After NPP there is CSD, PROD and AFD to catch things. The goal of AFC is to have an article that never gets to that point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The bar should be set at "probably likely to survive AfD", because that's precisely what AFC was created to do. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mobile, so perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see notability. Other than the OBE it's the usual puffy Chamber-of-Trade awards. EEng 15:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people): "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". It certainly looks like notability to me. Of course you could always take the the article to AfD, but I think you'll merely end up proving my point. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Just my two cents here. I do understand where the worry about AfC's coming from. There are systemic issues that need to be addressed, and it is my personal opinion there shouldn't be an AfC to begin with. Regarding these two particular articles, ATM Wilson does appear to pass WP:PROF without any major hurdles (especially taking into account he was an academic back in the 40s). AC Robinson, on the other hand, is one of over 100 thousand recipients of an OBE, the most minor of the honours in the system. Heck, my neighbour has an OBE just for being involved with my local British Society! This award is considered a personal one and is by no means a criterion for Wikipedia notability. Other awards are, such as the Medal of Honour or some knighthoods, so please do not use this as an argument for inclusion. The subject is a run-of-the-mill entrepreneur as far as I can tell, with the usual number of references amounting to "he worked for this" for so many years, or he "was a member of such and such organization" and "attended this round table" last year, etc. I would not have accepted this article either without requesting further claims of notability and their accompanying evidence. There simply isn't extensive coverage on independent and reliable sources about him, at least that I can find. Look at his website, for crying out loud! As it is, AfC reviewers make a choice: accept decent articles that meet general criteria, accept some and risk them being deleted at AfD or suggest improvements otherwise, or finally simply decline them cause their subjects have no place on Wikipedia. The lines are often fuzzy on which path is best to take and often times people will make completely different determinations based on their own interpretations of WP:GNG. This appears to be an isolated case and does not constitute widespread recklessness by said editor. They have made valuable contributions to the project and this has been dealt with in a particularly abrupt and aggressive manner. Always refer to the project and the user first before making a fuss on an admin board. Anyway, those are my quick thoughts about this after seeing the AfC notification by Sir Joseph. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the VAGUEWAVE paste-in of the general criteria everyone here knows. This isn't the place to debate notability, though I'll mention in passing that 500 OBEs (and 1700 other Queen's honors -- where does she find the time?) are awarded annually, so I doubt that's an automatic pass for notability, though again I could be Missing something. Given this, and the puffiness of the other sources, I can certainly see why notability was questioned at AfC, which was your complaint. EEng 18:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a better argument for passing by OBE than anything else in the list - the majority of it is fluff, and to speak to AFC, the idea is to keep out fluff pieces. I can clearly see how Robinson is borderline, so I fail to see any real issue with the decline there, although the article was created anyway, I would note. As for Wilson, there's not a single source on him from during his lifetime - everything in his bio is from his obituary, and everything else appears to be brief mentions in larger works. AFAIK, WP:BIO requires notability during life, and if that is not the case, WP:SIGCOV hasn't been met - his "famous paper" is mentioned in only one source, and there's no indication that there are any more than passing mentions anywhere else. Again, this appears to be just the sort of thing AFC is designed to prevent going live. So I fail to see an issue with either action. MSJapan (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. The user that's preoccupied seems to have been enchanted by a simple copy edit and all those lovely useless links. By the way, it's not the Queen that decides who gets the honours, she merely approves a premade list, I believe. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but she still has to do all the knighting and tying-on of ribbons and so on. They say she does a good job -- has a bit of conversation with each recipient showing that she actually knows something about what they've done -- "how are those potbellied pigs doing nowadays, Farmer Brown?" and so on. EEng 18:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: WP:BIO certainly does not require notability during life, otherwise we'd have no article on Vincent van Gogh, or any number of people who came into the public eye only after their death. Wilson was FRCPsych, FBPsS and FRSA - that's WP:NACADEMIC #3 in the opening sentence. The fact that he also meets NACADEMIC #1, #2, #7, and arguably #5 is apparent from the sources. Wilson was also Hon Sec of the Royal Society of Medicine - just how eminent does someone have to be as an academic to satisfy you? --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We've already established he passes WP:PROF. At least I did on my first post above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The OBE contributes to establishing notability, but in my experience only the top three classes of the Order of the British Empire (GBE, KBE/DBE, and CBE) are considered to satisfy WP:ANYBIO; the lower OBE and MBE are not. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Three other experienced editors declined the draft when it had 24, 31, and 29 references, either for failing to demonstrate notability or for sounding like an advertisement, so LaMona is not alone in being concerned that the topic would more likely than not be deleted at AfD. The fact that after being accepted, it was promptly marked for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising by yet another experienced editor suggests that LaMona's concerns were reasonable. RexxS is welcome to encourage AfC reviewers to decline fewer drafts. Administrative action is not needed. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I second those two comments by Worldbruce. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have noticed this same problem with LaMona setting the bar too high by declining articles that were clearly notable and well written William B. Taylor (historian) - indeed even articles written by a topic specialist with fine wikiknowledge (I dont know why the editor in question keeps using AFC). IN the particular instance she was implementing an extremely strict interpretation of WP:BLP stating that "we dont allow unsourced statements in BLPs" even when the staments were completely pedestrian and unlikely to be challenged (and could be easily sourced). I mentioned this concern at her talkpage[60]. This is a serious problem because it is the place where we should spend time recruiting and not time excluding- it is of extreme importance that users who participate in AFC are helpful, supportive and not overly critical.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Much ado about nothing - the obvious and simplest solution for an unsatisfactory review is the "Resubmit" button. There are multiple reviewers active at AFC. There's an "unwritten rule" that the same reviewer should not repeatedly review a draft - the agregate of multiple opinions is more likely to be unbiased and fair than any one reviewer. If a submitter is entirely unsatisfied with the reviews their draft is getting they are entitled to simply move the draft to mainspace, AFC is not compulsory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The submitter had not even attempted to ask for advice or assistance at the AFC Help Desk. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"AFC is not compulsory" Honest question: do you think most AfC submitters really know that? My understanding is that a lot of them are there because they can't pass CSD, but now they've jumped from CSD to GNG, with most likely not understanding either. TimothyJosephWood 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have every reason to believe that AFC submitters know that AFC is not compulsory. I may be mistaken, and there may be a few editors who do think that AFC is required, but I have no evidence to that effect. Many AFC submitters come in after already having had their first article draft speedy-deleted, and then resubmit it via AFC, and then it is declined rather than deleted. Yes, it is true that they come in because they can't pass CSD on the first pass. I agree with Worldbruce that there is no need for administrative action, and that the filing here should just be closed as ignored. The original poster didn't even try to discuss the decline with LaMona. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just as much reason to believe that most AFC submitters believe that AFC is compulsory, and a glance at LaMona's talk page will reveal numerous examples of submitters at their wits' end asking what they can do to have the article accepted. But that's not the concern that I brought here. I tried to discuss the same concern with LaMona just a few weeks ago and I was ignored. I'm now getting rather sick of the (Redacted) you're peddling, Robert McClenon. If I have a concern that is rebuffed, the next time that concern shows up, I'll escalate it, as I have done. I don't need cheap jibes from the peanut gallery when all I'm doing is following Wikipedia dispute resolution policy. --RexxS (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I take very strong exception to the personal attack by User:RexxS. I had not seen evidence of a conduct issue until now, although RexxS had sought to portray the issue as a conduct issue on the part of User:LaMona, and LaMona has complicated things by making it into an issue about sexism and systemic bias. There is now a conduct issue, namely, a personal attack against me accusing me of lying. What I can see now is that RexxS has gotten to the point where he appears to be ready to insult anyone who doesn't agree with him. At least that is how it looks. Accusing other editors of lying isn't a useful way to advance any valid concerns about AFC or about an AFC reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum, the last post at the help desk was a response to the feedback of "This reads more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article". And...well...that's probably the least helpful that feedback can possibly be, especially to a new user. If there's an AGF multiplier, it should probably be the people going to AfC and trying to conform. TimothyJosephWood 00:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• When are we going to do something to really make people think twicethrice before opening ANI threads on minor issues??? EEng 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• When editors start responding to reasonable concerns in the first place - that was the same concern just a few weeks ago. Since we scrapped WP:RFC/U, this is the next step in dispute resolution for conduct issues. Have you got any bright ideas on how else to escalate DR when direct contact is ignored? I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Ask at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
• Ask your friendly neighborhood admin to take a look

ANI should be the final step. EEng 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution #Resolving user conduct disputes: "the first step is to discuss the issue with that editor, politely, simply, yet directly, on his or her Talk page ... If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)." In case you'd missed it, this is "Ask your friendly neighborhood admin to take a look". Wikiprojects have no place in user conduct disputes. Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution #Last resort: Arbitration, I think you'll find that the final step is ArbCom. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously that text is out of step with actual practice. And Arbcom isn't a step, it's a tumble into the abyss. You asked what you might do before coming here, and I answered. This isn't an admin issue. EEng 01:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Your assumption is that this is an administrative issue, when we've all pointed out it isn't. It's a difference of opinion between two editors. The reviewer in question hasn't broken any policies. There has been no vandalistic behaviour, nor should there be any aministrative action taken in consequence (or am I missing something?). Please AGF and engage in a positive manner. Common sense would've dictated a little nudge on the AfC talk page. Again, reviewing guidelines are a recurring topic on Wikipedia. I would also like to direct you to read up on AfC's reviewing process, which you seem unfamiliar with. Talking about this is worthwhile and should be pursued. We often engage in such debates. I agree with you that there should be a clear message about AfC not being binding nor compulsory. Finally, let's please wait for LaMona's response before passing on judgement. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think LaMona does a pretty good job and I wish some of the other AFC reviewers would do the same as well. Our work here is to improve the encyclopaedia and write good quality articles. The WP:BURDEN of demonstrating notability lies on the article creator, not on the reviewer. What's the harm if we get a good quality article from the start? AFC is a pretty good mechanism if used well. I have seen LaMona review a lot of articles created by editors with a COI/paid editors and many were rejected. If these articles were accepted without doing a strict check on the notability and article quality, it would simply clog up AFD and sometimes COIN. More importantly, volunteer editors would need to fix the issues (promotional content, removing non-RS sources etc.), a WP:BOGOF situation - volunteer time gets used by these articles leading to a systemic bias. It is much better solution to ensure good articles from the start. As far as I am aware, the same submission is usually never reviewed by the same editor again, so I don't see how it is problematic if an editor rejects a submission on valid grounds. The article creator can simply submit it for review again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Lemongirl942: "The harm" is that new editors get bitten and possibly frightened off in a forum where they are coming to get help and mentoring. We cannot afford to discourage new talent joining the community. See my comments below in the "back on track" subsection. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Lemongirl942, I suspect that you didn't mean to link to WP:BURDEN, since it does not mention notability at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Surely my opinion is worth but a pittance, but in my limited experience there will always be "edge-case" drafts that lead to disagreement. Anthony Charles Robinson appears to be one of them, and many editors have weighed in about the notability of the subject in this very thread. To be sure, I have not always agreed with LaMona's reviews, just as I'm sure she (or any other experienced editor, for that matter) would not agree with every single one of my AfC reviews. But this is why we discuss, refer to policy and guidelines, apply common sense and consult with knowledgeable third parties. In my opinion, there are often a range of reasonable alternatives open to AfC reviewers, and, as the revision history of the article in question suggests, LaMona's decline of Anthony Charles Robinson seems reasonable to me. /wiae /tlk 03:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• An OBE is significant in the UK and notable. I would be concerned there is some US centric positioning here. My real concern is that AfC is becoming a kind of preliminary good article step. It was never meant to be so. AfC is more of a collaborative situation where editors can if they want to have input into whether an article will end up in an AfD situation. When a highly experienced editor comes to AfC definitely collaboration should be a given. LaMona beavering away in this area seems to have inadvertantly crossed a faint line between unilateral judgment and rejection and offering suggestions as to how an article can avoid RfD. She might have done better to respond to Rexx and his concerns as collaborators do.If the article is judged to have promotional bits those can be trimmed. I see also there is paid editor concern. Editor behavior and article quality should be delineated. (Littleolive oil (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC))
• As a British person, I would not say that an OBE automatically confers notability. About AfC, there was some serious chatter a year or so ago about disbanding it, but it hasn't come to anything yet – pinging Kudpung whose input in discussions about AfC is usually valuable. BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And there are those who would disagree and that's fine; its a needed discussion rather than a more unilateral decision-making process. My point and thought anyway. (Littleolive oil (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

• Comment - If it is intended that OBE (or any particular degree within OBE) should confer ipso facto notability, then there should be a guideline, as there are to various other criteria for ipso facto notability, such as state legislators and Olympic athletes. I note that User:LaMona hasn't edited in 24 hours, and we should wait for her reply. As noted above, there wasn't any effort to discuss with her prior to coming here, and some of us know that WP:ANI is a last step in dispute resolution, but, unfortunately, a few editors know that all disputes should be brought to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a guideline, WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" but I accept that it's open to interpretation, and others are entitled to think that the OBE is insignificant. That's OK. But when you add that to coverage which is far from insubstantial in two major newspapers, The Guardian and The Press (York), it's becomes a mistake on the part of the reviewer - and you can read here of other problems where she has held back perfectly good articles. The effort to discuss with her was last month about A.T.M. Wilson, which was ignored completely, and I resent the implication that I had not previously raised the same concern with her previously. Fortunately I have brought very, very few complaints to this board previously and your judgement on my propensity to make use of this second step in dispute resolution is flawed. --RexxS (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - In this case, the filing party is a relatively experienced editor and could have moved their own article to article space. Of course, that would have left it open to AFD, and avoiding AFD is one of the reasons for using AFC. As noted, any registered editor can move a draft to article space. AFC is really a service to new editors, which is another reason why administrative action is a little extreme. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The article had already been moved into article space, which is indirectly how I noticed it and realised it was the same reviewer who had ignored my previous concerns. It has been open to AfD for the last couple of days, but I see that no editor has so far taken the opportunity to take it there. AFC is a disservice to new editors and the encyclopedia when it keeps reasonable articles from mainspace, where there is at least a chance that other editors will polish up the flaws. Raising the bar at AFC in an effort to reach "high quality" is wasteful on resources and frustrating for new editors. --RexxS (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks Beth, for pinging me, but there's not much I can say. When I was a little nipper in short bags and scabs on all my knees there was this huge lady with what looked like a dead fox hanging round her neck who looked like something out of a Wilde play or a Wodehouse novel who would sweep into our little classrooms in our little wannabe expensive prep school smelling of lavendar water and gin. We were told, "Don't pick your nose when she talks you, she's an OBE". Not that at 7 years old we had the foggiest what an OBE was or that we should be awestruck by the revelation. I'm waiting for mine for being clever enough to stay out of the UK for 45 years, and I bend to the wisdom my very good friend RexxS who is still waiting for his for still being there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What kind of school smells of lavender water and gin? EEng 23:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • EEng#s, you would need to be British, born in the 1940's, andbrought up in an arch-conservative upper middle-class town to understand tat ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It was always my impression that one had to understand tit for tat. EEng 14:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• For those who think I should reply, I actually have no reply because there is really nothing to reply to -- and the most reasonable replies (above: resubmit or move to main space yourself) have been ignored. The reason that no reply would answer the accusations is that the supposed arguments here are not the real message, because this is essentially about men being offended that a woman has "taken the measure" of a man and found him wanting, rather than agreeing that men are always notable because they are men. This is more of the sexism that occurs on Wikipedia, disguised, of course, as an argument about policy. Should these same accusers show the same indignity for an article about a woman being rejected, I would change my opinion (but I'm not holding my breath). The only reasonable thing to do is ignore this type of behavior, because answering it as if it really were about policy, just perpetuates the behavior. And I have much better things to do, and therefore choose not to engage. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ...Wut? TimothyJosephWood 15:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ...Wow, what kind of a response is that? I'm genuinely asking, no sarcasm. I have no idea how this went from a complaint about the way somebody does AfC to "sexism". Mr rnddude (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:NPA

**...Here I was all set to conclude RexxS is overreacting. Then along comes LaMona to act batshit crazy. Best bit: "this is essentially about men being offended that a woman has 'taken the measure' of a man and found him wanting." Oy gevalt! EEng 23:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• • ...Singularly the most sexist thing I have read on the internet today, LaMona. Valeince (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • At no other time has the "well that escalated quickly" meme been more appropriate. Blackmane (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a shame that you editors can't take a moment to be introspective about how your actions might be sexist. AfC is a helpful aspect of article refining. Also, as an editor who has been censored before I think you all should reconsider being so harsh to a valuable female editor, which are few and far in between because of similar discussions on this very wiki. PS: Calling someone “batshit crazy” for being critiqued is a clear sign of being sexist. Tod Robbins (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, hold on. <instrospects momentarily> No, it's nothing to do with sexism -- I'd call any editor, male or female, batshit crazy who was acting batshit crazy. The sad thing is that until then there was general support here for LaMona's actions at AfC. EEng 22:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't criticize female editors because their feelings might get hurt? That above all else sounds like actual sexism to me. clpo13_(talk) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • For a change, I agree with EEng#s assessment. It's nothing to do with sexism, this is just not being able to take criticism. Everyone here knows I am a woman editor and a feminist, the behavior of LaMona sets back other women. You edit wikipedia, you need to either have tough hide or a flamesuit. We should be civil, and we need more civility, and places like AfC need it most of all. Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

To keep things consistent, I'd like to change my position to oppose Montanabw. EEng 00:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

LOL, I was thinking more along the lines that if we both agree on something, EEng#s, it's gotta be gospel! I mean, who could possibly declare us both wrong? Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

back on track .. LaMona's behaviors are the issue

• Comment: (uninvolved editor, don't know RexxS or LaMona as far as I can recall) It seems to me having just read though ALL of this that the OP's main concern (as per the title "Damage done by declining AFC") has become missed/lost by some editors in the discussion of notability. I was under the impression that ANI was never for content disputes yet much (but not all) of the text above is dealing with just that and ignoring the prime issue brought to ANI:

• "I am now seriously concerned by the damage being done by LaMona to new editors [..]" -- RexxS
• "What's the harm if we get a good quality article from the start?" -- Lemongirl942

The bottom line is RexxS is not asking this forum to agree or disagree with "Was the article notable?", but rather the issue he has raised is "Has LaMona been biting newbies via the power of the AfC review?" If his references show that LaMona's behavior is problematic ([1] exceeding the mandate of the AFC process, [2] systematically discouraging multiple new editors, and [3] being unresponsive to discuss the matter) then that is a valid ANI issue. If the wider question ("Is the whole culture at AFC exceeding the mandate?") needs to be resolved then I think that needs to be discussed at a separate discussion at WP:VPP or some similar forum and wide-spread community consensus needs to be established since AFC affects the entire community, not just the AFC helpers. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction: I now have just read through all of this, seeing LaMona's reply came in while I was in edit mode. I think adding a new behavior issue is now in order since her rant on sexist discrimination is by her own hand a huge violation of AGF. Frankly I thought LaMona was a man since one of my best friend's is a guy with the last name of Lamona. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I may be guessing here but "La" Mona <- the feminine form for "the" in French gives it a way that we're talking about a woman here. If it was Le then we'd be talking about a male. I forget was Les is. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't take anything for given nowadays, just look at LaShawn Merritt - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Replying to the section OP, just to be clear. No, it's not about content, but it has to be - when one complains about someone declining at AFC being a "behavior problem", you have to look at the underlying content to see if that is the case because of "AFC's mandate". AFC is not there to approve every piece of unsourced garbage someone writes and shoves in there - we get enough of that in mainspace anyway. AFC's role is to see that only articles that meet policy (and would survive AfD because of that) are created via their area. I don't think either article was an open-and-shut case, and thus I fail to see how acting within mandate equals a behavior problem. The fact that there is sexism on Wikipedia isn't a secret, and complaining about it is not really pertinent to this discussion, nor is a reaction to it a sign of "poor behavior." I don't even particularly see a pattern of behavior here that I would find troubling. This is an editor dispute, and I don't see why any admin intervention is even necessary. Moreover, as this really comes down to one article that wasn't created, is there a pattern of articles LaMona declined that she clearly should not have? If that is not the case, this discussion serves no purpose, because no behavior issue has been shown. MSJapan (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: I'll address your latter point first, to wit: "The fact that there is sexism on Wikipedia isn't a secret, and complaining about it is not really pertinent to this discussion, nor is a reaction to it a sign of "poor behavior.".

(A) Complaining about sexism in general is not an issue, but accusing the OP and other editors in this ANI discussion of sexism without evidentiary refs to back that up is both a massive violation of AGF and a clear and outrageous personal attack on the character of the OP and other editors here.

I have excerpted the following three sentences from LaMona's "non-reply" and [compressed them to their essential meaning] to eliminate the signal-to-noise ratio:

Here LaMona clearly identifies she is targetting her remarks to the OP (the accuser) and blatantly attacking him as being sexist.

* " [...] no reply would answer the accusations [because] the real message [is that the OP sexistly believes] men are always notable because they are men. "

Here LaMona is countering that this entire ANI report is a subterfuge for sexist behavior. She goes on to make personal attacks on other editors by implying that anyone who frames this discussion as a policy debate is also sexist.

* " This [ANI complaint] is [...] sexism [...] disguised [...] as an argument about policy. "

Here LaMona demonstrates she is applying her own personal standards for editorial behavior, disregarding WP:AGF, based on her personal perceptions of sexist bias. Additionally this argument is hypocritical since she would be willing to "change her mind" if the article was about a woman but since it is about a man it must therefor be rejected on her sexist views that assume it is only being defended because it about a man. (Yes, sexism cuts both ways.)

* " Should these same accusers show the same indignity for an article about a woman being rejected, I would change my opinion (but I'm not holding my breath). "

These are all self-inflicted evidence of unacceptable behavior issues that are appropriate to bring to DR and in this case ANI. LaMona makes it clear in this rant that she will not engage in any DR discussion at any level about her behaviors as long as she percieves such discussions to be "disguised" sexism, and so ANI or ARBCOM are the only options left if she will not discuss the problem. Additionally these particularly agregious behaviors require no "pattern" for an ANI to be appropriate.

Unfortunatelty I do not have the time now to address your other statement that LaMona is "acting within mandate" since I am coming onto this issue cold and that will require substantial research into the history of the article in question and the discussions around them. I will say that her comment "[...] bad refs (as in this case) are a good reason to keep them back, IMO, keeping the editor working on it until a higher quality is reached." is not consistent with the AFC mandate. There is no mandate to make the articles "higher quality" as a condition of acceptance, and the official Review Instructions make it abundantly clear that an imperfect article should be accepted as long as it will "probably survive" AfD. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Koala Tea Of Mercy, I'd just like to address that last excerpt you took as I believe you have somewhat misunderstood what she meant. I am referring to the below;

• " Should these same accusers show the same indignity for an article about a woman being rejected, I would change my opinion (but I'm not holding my breath). "

You've misunderstood this to mean that she'd change her mind about the article if it were about a woman. What I read this to mean is that her opinion of the OP and us (the systemic sexist bias of Wikipedia) would change if we'd shown said "indignity" towards an article about a woman being declined. Something I have no intention of doing based solely on a subject's gender. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see that interpretation as plausible, but even so it still shows a tendency towards a reverse-sexist worldview. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I wholly agree, just that her opinions and feelings towards sexism on Wikipedia isn't an actionable offense here. By contrast if she cannot keep neutrality towards an article due to the subjects gender, she really shouldn't be at AfC in the first place (Note I do not think this is the case). Currently her conduct at AfC seems to be fine, if slightly restrictive.. Turns ut, there may be neutrality issues. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It seems pertinent to flag that this type of escalation is equally, if not more so, damaging to the new editors the OP has raised concern for. Wikipedia has a reputation for being hostile and this thread does nothing to dispute the problem. Not only has the validity of bringing the issue to this forum already been rightly called into question, responses regarding LaMona's actions and comments have been framed as a 'rant', 'batshit crazy' and a violation of AGF when the issue at hand was based on assuming poor faith. Is this the example we want to be setting for new editors? Is this how we counter systemic bias? I agree with previous editors that the original issue could have been resolved by resubmitting or moving the article to the mainspace rather than arguing point by point over issues that were previously identified by other editors for improvement. At this point, any behavioural issues as they pertain to new editors stem directly from how this discussion has unfolded. --Dnllnd (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I second MSJapan and Dnllnd's comments. This escalated quickly! A few last points I'd like to make are the following: 1) I urge you not to dig deeper into the sexism row, this is not the time nor place; 2) people seem to be forgetting what AfC's workflow is like; reviewing is often not a clear-cut scenario, wherein users need to improve articles that would otherwise be quickly PRODed, etc as soon as they're accepted (if they're notable, of course) - this is precisely why I believe LaMona declined the draft {what would the whole purpose of AfC be if there wasn't an option to temporarily halt an article's way to mainspace?}; 3) again, I'm unaware of endemic disruptive behaviour from LaMona's part, in fact I've often encountered her good rapport and guidance towards new users - I therefore suggest this post be closed and other means of discussion be set forth. Finally, when will we ever discuss the pertinence of perpetuating the disaster that's AfC as a concept? Can we finally snowball this into a cause for its disbandment? That would certainly be this post's silver lining. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of AfC is to simultaneously get promising articles that would be deleted in mainspace improved enough to be accepted, and prevent articles that would not be approved from even getting there. It's not meant to discourage good faith newbies but to help them--either by getting the article improved, or by explaining why it was not a viable topic. At present, most of the articles submitted there are hopelessly unviable, and most of those seem to be from COI editors. This gives reviewers an inclination towards rejection, especially if they engage in the common but unfortunate practice of reviewing many article in a row. (I've learned not to do only a few at a time myself, just as I patrol only a few New Pages in a row for the same reason.)

It is the accepted guideline at NPP that the key factor is judging whether it will pass AfD. Some reviewers in the past, and even a few in the present, insist on the article having no significant defects--a few have even insisted on GA quality. This is not the intention--articles get improved for things like reference format better in mainspace where many people can work on them. All I think necessary is that the quality not be so low as to give people at afd a prejudicially bad impression. There is no accepted numerical rule for "likely to pass AfD" -- it would be meaningless anyway , because AfD decisions are sometimes quite erratic. To the extent a number makes sense, most reviewers seem to use something like 66 to 80% likely--I'm at the higher end usually, but if someone asks in good faith and is trying and there's a decent possibility, I will accept, and let AfD decide: I'm not infallible. At least in principle, all AfC acceptances go through NPP anyway.

I have noticed that some of LaMona's declines have been overly restrictive. I deal with this very simply by accepting them. Similarly, people have accepted drafts I've rejected. I usually let them go, but if I really object, deletion process is available.

I don't think we need to make too much a fuss about this. I know that I go through periods of accepting too much or rejecting too much; people usually tell me, and I often realize I have indeed been drifting, and I re-calibrate. I hope LaMona will take this in the same spirit. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives to Go Forward

I will try to summarize the alternatives for ways forward from here. This was filed at a conduct noticeboard as a conduct issue, but various issues have been raised. First, this was filed as a complaint supposedly about the conduct of User:LaMona. In my opinion, no evidence whatsoever has been presented of any conduct issue on her part. However, that is my opinion. Obviously the filer thinks that there is a conduct issue. Second, the reply by LaMona was over-the-top and bizarre, but I also don’t see a conduct issue in the usual sense on her part either. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but perhaps a bizarre filing is offset by a bizarre reply. Third, there has been a conduct issue on the part of the filing party, at least in lashing out with allegations of lying. I am not however asking for an actual boomerang. Fourth, there are questions about whether LaMona as a reviewer is too harsh. I see no argument that this allegation rises to the level of a conduct issue. Since the filing party says that discussion on her talk page has not been successful, take this to the AFC WikiProject. Fifth, there are questions about whether AFC in general is too demanding and is rejecting too many valid submissions. (I disagree with that argument; reasonable editors can disagree.) This is not an administrative or conduct issue. Take it to Village pump (policy) or to the AFC Wikiproject. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: you said above "The original poster didn't even try to discuss the decline with LaMona." to which the OP replied " I tried to discuss the same concern with LaMona just a few weeks ago and I was ignored. I'm now getting rather sick of the lie you're peddling,". This ignored attempt was one of the foremost refs provided in the complaint at the top of this thread. Looking through the history that request for discussion was ignored for 15 days before being archived and her very next edit following it makes it abundantly evident she knew the OP's request for discussion was there.
Why did you say he did not even try when the evidence was provided from the beginning that he did? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant that he didn't provide any evidence of a conduct dispute. I still don't see any evidence of a conduct dispute. It was pointed out, after the original filing, that there had been a request, ignored on her talk page; I did see that. I still don't see evidence of a conduct dispute. Failure to respond to a request to reconsider a decline is not a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It may be that is what you meant to say, but what you actually said was the OP did not "try to discuss the decline" [emphasis added]. Based on your exact words the OP was right to call you out for being in error -- granted he could have used more diplomatic language -- but he was obviously frustrated and in the heat of debate we make all make mistakes (like saying one thing and meaning another ). Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 11:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No. The OP was wrong, in that he didn't say that I was mistaken. He said that I was lying, and he had no right to do that, and I will ask you to call him out on that also. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It is time to close this thread. Should it just be closed, and/or closed with a warning to anyone, and/or closed and referred to a policy discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not my fight, but out of curiosity, I sampled the last five drafts LaMona was involved in, in light of the...unique...reply above. These may not be representative, but this is what turned up:

• Olive Christian Malvery: Accepted submission, biography of female subject, 3 sources, all seem to be books, all non-linked to online content
• Havening, Declined submission, therapy developed by male, 15 sources, seems to cover books, news, and scholarly publication
• Vermiifilter, declined submission, process developed by male, six sources, all scholarly, non-linked
• Marc Liebeskind, declined submission, biography of male subject, 12 sources, many/most in French
• Micko Westmoreland, biography of male subject, 41 sources, some/many of dubious reliability

This may not mean much, and is, of course, a very small sample. But it does seem a bit off. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may, sticking up for La Mona she also declined these [61] with 43 refs about a female and this [62] with 8 references also a female subject and also this [63] with over 100 references/citations for tone and NPOV issues. I don't think her standards have waned in favour of women. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a 'fight' and framing it as such is inflammatory and continues to perpetuate a clearly exhausted conversation. More importantly, it further calls into question the contributions of an editor working to ensure articles meet a standard we can all agree is important to aim for. Beyond ensuring quality, the value of the Afc process is instructive in nature - namely how, when and why to improve drafts. Splitting hairs about reviews that can be easily resubmitted for consideration by another editor is unnecessarily adversarial and, again, indicative of the biased and hostile reputation Wikipedia has established for itself. Finally, print resources (like the one used in the Olive Christian Malvery page) are completely valid resources, particularly for historical figures of non-Caucasian backgrounds written about prior to the internet. As already illustrated above, there are myriad online resources that add no significant value to a page beyond adding to the ref count. There is nothing 'off' about this sample of LaMona's page reviews beyond it being completely speculative and, whether intended or not, harassing. Shut this thread down. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Not my fight," also, "no dog/horse in this race," is an idiom intended to express having no personal stake or interest in the matter at hand. TimothyJosephWood 14:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment; Up until yesterday I would have been fine with a close with no action, other than maybe opening a discussion about AfC if others wanted to and with RexxS taking their grievance to AfC to be dealt with by the WikiProject (editors/coordinators/whomever). However, with La Mona's response, which was not "bizarre" but offensive; a personal attack on the characters of both the editor who filed the grievance. Being called sexist because they disagreed with La Mona's decision and called into question her ability to perform AfC functions (which I will state was wholly over-the-top). And with other editor's, who had responded with their own comments, being told they were perpetuating sexist behaviour if they had disagreed with La Mona's decision (which was the minority of editors here, from my reading of the thread most editors agreed with La Mona's actions while a few referred to AfC, as a whole, being to strict and not just La Mona). That said, I'm still fine with a close of this thread but I recommend that La Mona be warned sternly that her comment was an absolute horseshit and offensive thing to say to so many editors (at AN/I and in general). I wasn't even involved in this thread prior to her comment and was still offended by the notion that because some editors disagree with her judgement that that makes them sexist "men" who are "offended that a woman has "taken the measure" of a man and found him wanting". With the new information, above or below, I'm measuring your AfC work and am leaning towards "wanting", but, no official judgement yet.

Sorry, I was in edit mode when you posted your comment TJW, hence why my post was above yours. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Close with warnings and also Close with referral for policy discussion as follows:
  • - Warning to LaMona that all editors are expected to participate IN and WITH good faith in early DR discussions to prevent escalation.
  • - Warning to LaMona that presumptions of sexism violate WP:AGF and accusations of sexism targeted at individuals require evidence refs.
  • - Refer for community-wide policy discussion the question of the mandate for AfC. Where are the lines of "required improvements" drawn for submitted articles?
  • I am not suggesting warnings for RexxS only because I think his desire to address the larger "damage to new users" issue was in good faith even if done poorly. Additionally if LaMona had discussed this with him earlier when he asked her to we probably would not be here at all. Lacking her willingness to respond, his using of ANI was a logical (though not best) choice for next step DR.
• One last thing, and this is offered as a friendly advisory for @LaMona:... I do not know you and you do not know me, but sexist is the last word that would describe who I am. I have gone into battle against sexism time and time again over the past few decades and sometimes paid a very high price for my uncompromising stands against gender bigoted (ex-)employers, both chauvinists and misogynists. Having said that -- and having only this very brief interaction with you on this page -- I am honestly concerned that you may have fallen victim to Maslow's Hammer which is summed up by the quotation "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Translating this for the context here I offer that if your first and best defense against accusations (valid or not) of editorial misconduct is to cry "sexism" then pretty soon that defense becomes your Hammer and good faith editors' concerns are soon only seen erroneously as Nails. As for myself, I am a sonic screwdriver thank you very much! Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your references to "nailing" and "screwing" are obviously crude sexual talk meant to intimidate women. EEng 15:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• • A problem exists not if it exists in reality, but if it is perceived to exist. In short, if one of two parties think there's a problem, there is, because there's something going on to give that impression. It's not to say it's an error in thinking that can be corrected easily, but that's "solving the problem", isn't it? MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @MSJapan: Your logic is brutally flawed. Hypothetical example: Lets say that I perceive that your username means you are the official spokesperson for MicroSoft-Japan and that therefor everything you write at Wikipedia must be a subtle promotion for your company's software products. By your logic a problem exists because there is something going on to cause that perception. Horse pucky! Your username is just fine and your words are not advertising. The first two letters of your username could just as easily be your first and last initials or the honorific "Ms" to indicate your gender. The only "problem" in this hypothetical is my erroneous attribution of flawed perception as to the meaning of your name and the self-inflicted coloring of my interpretation of your actions based on my flawed perceptions. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Then there is a problem, isn't there? It's just not where you thought it was. :) MSJapan (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
        • While I appreciate the humor, my point is that the problem is not the cause of the perception as you proposed, the problem is the faulty perception itself. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Close - This is literally about one article - if it's such a big deal, approve it and see what happens. There is nothing here worth punitive warnings, and nothing is going to be solved by them. No systemic conduct issues on the part of any editor have been shown, and no one is acting in bad faith. MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. One of the proposed warnings is directly tied to a behavioural allegation that was disproved and the other stems from a comment in a discussion that never should have happened in this forum. If it is decided that the above, or any, warnings are warranted, RexxS should equally receive one for assuming LaMona's poor faith and for escalating an issue that could have been resolved by resubmitting the article for review. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • "never should have happened in this forum" is not true, as explained above, and even if were, that's not a free pass to make unfounded personal attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Dnllnd: Which "behavioural allegation" was disproved exactly? If you are referring to the OP's claim that LaMona refused to respond to a request for discussion about a decline (a form of early DR) that was quite adequately proven (15 days with no response to a request on her talk page). Add to that her statement above of "And I have much better things to do, and therefore choose not to engage." is an unacceptable attitude for someone in a quasi-authority role such as AfC Reviewer. As a wise person once said: "With great power comes great responsibility." The proposed warning is nothing more than a reminder of the rules we all are supposed to live by.
      As for your "stems from a comment in a discussion that never should have happened" argument that is pure fallacy. World War I was the "War to End All Wars", so then World War II, the Korean War, the Gulf War, etc all should never have happened. But they did. By your logic that would mean we should just have ignored all the dark things that came from these wars because they never should have happened. LaMona's "comment" was a major violation of at least two major policies, offensive as Hell, and is an action that should never be repeated. She can protest the general state of WP sexism all she wants (and I'll join her cause) but accusations aimed at individuals require evidence. The proposed warning is the least restrictive solution that could be proposed. For example it could be proposed that she be topic-banned from reviewing AfC bio articles on men due to a lack of ability to remain unbiased, but that would be extreme and probably unwarranted. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 13:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • No, thanks. This has turned into a witch hunt and I'm done. I respectfully ask that you refrain from pinging me in any further comments regarding this matter. I won't be commenting further. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Close without formal recommendations or warnings. No case has been presented with regard to a conduct issue on the part of User:LaMona. The original filing by User:RexxS, the reply by LaMona about sexism, and RexxS's allegation of peddling a lie were all sub-optimal, but we don't always need to warn for sub-optimal conduct, and getting hung up on who to warn for sub-optimal conduct is sub-optimal. Whether AFC standards are too high can reasonably be discussed either at WP:WikiProject Articles for Creation itself or at Village pump. My own thinking is that the AFC process works reasonably well, but I am not impartial there. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Close. AfC is discouraging to both reviewers and newbies, but that's not going to be fixed here. Further discussion should be taken up elsewhere. Jonathunder (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Close with an admonition to LaMona to remember WP:AGF and a firm reminder that AfC is only to review articles by AfD criteria, not GA, not FA, and not one's personal whims. If they are start class and sourced, if they will pass WP:GNG, they are done. Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Break

I am the editor who published Anthony Charles Robinson from draft, and I immediately raised my concerns on LaMona's talk page. It is her response to me that Koala Tea' quotes above. I therefore take it that the accusations of sexism were in part directed at me, and I utterly reject them.

This was not the first time I have raised concerns about her over-strict interpretation of AfC guidelines and her misrepresentation of them to editors submitting drafts for review.

The previous case was about LabArchives (not a man or woman), and as can be seen here, she relied on a specific quotation of AfC guidelines ("one of the rejection criteria is precisely 'Reads like an advertisement'") which does not in fact exist in those guidelines, and when politely asked her to give a source for this precise quote, she was either unwilling or unable to do so, responding "Are you finished doubting me? Really, this is all pretty standard AFC and I don't feel I have to justify myself to you.". The article languished in Draft space until I published it a couple of days ago.

The same day that I published the Robinson bio, I published Hickies (shoes) (not a man or woman), which LaMona had also rejected at AfC. Her comment in doing so was "I hope you are aware that WP does not allow promotion or advertising".

I had earlier published the A.T.M. Wilson bio mentioned by RexxS. This was, I note, written by a relatively new, woman editor [Declaration: one who was first trained at an workshop I ran].

I suggest that these examples show a clear pattern of behaviour which is likely to deter new editors, and have a detrimental effect on the project.

The previous AfC articles I moved from Draft, after they were wrongly rejected by other editors at AfC, were both about women: Margaret Lefranc (written by "Karenfrank"; declined as "Almost entirely based on unpublished orginal [sic] research...", and then "Nothing significant has been done to address the concerns of the other reviewers"; and Hilary Paynter (written by an IP who wrote only about women; rejected as "a person who does not meet notability guidelines"). Both articles have been unchallenged for over a year.

I suggest that these examples, together with those above, show an issue with AfC in general which is likely to deter new editors, and have a detrimental effect on the project.

I am also concerned to see that some of those defending LaMona on this page have been canvassed (encouraged to post here) by her, off-wiki. I am prepared to evidence this, but am concerned not to breach our policy on outing. I would appreciate guidance on what I may say in that regard (here or in email), but in the meantime invite those who have posted after being canvassed to declare so here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of both Hickies and LabArchive, La Mona is correct they do read a little like advertisements. A mild example "LabArchives collaborated with many educational institutions" <- the weasel is strong with this one. Unless you can identify those "many" educational institutions then this sentence is completely useless to the reader. Other examples (from LabArchives) of meaningless phrases include "Several studies" (which ones?), "are now a common" (measured comparatively with?), "used by over 120,000 scientists" (meaning what exactly? that its popular?) and "on 6 continents" (I can safely assume that the seventh one is Antarctica and what a random piece of trivia to include). To be honest, I'd have failed both articles if I'd reviewed them at AfC myself. As for Hickies, its less promotional in nature, but, what on Earth is this; "The name HICKIES is from the cheeky term for a mark of affection." (like I know what a hicky is alright, but, why would you call it a "cheeky term", I can't even, it's actually adorable more than anything to be honest). Is she fairly strict, yes I think so, is she overboard with it, no probably not. As for the off-wiki canvassing, no comment I'd need to brush up on outing policies and may do that now. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you give us a pointer to the "rejection criteria [which] is precisely 'Reads like an advertisement'"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I was writing this up when you responded, the unedited version; Yes an article should fail AfC if it reads like an advertisement, if it would fail at the hurdles of CSD (blatant advertisement for example), PROD, BLPPROD, or AfD, then it fails at AfC. This is not a quote, just common sense and what AfC is for. Here's the actual quote and I can direct you to the correct page if you'd like "If the submission is a blatant advertisement decline the submission as such." and is located on "Reviewing instructions" under "Quick fail criteria". So yes, it does exist in the guidelines. Should she have referred the editor to the correct place, yes that would have been far more collegiate than her actual response. Andy Mabbett Mr rnddude (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

So no "rejection criteria [which] is precisely 'Reads like an advertisement'", then. I note that Enterprisey has given us the actual criterion, below, and it says nothing like that; it requires "more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". The articles in question passed that, by a country mile; and are far further from being "blatant advertisement". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely as in letter by letter, no, precisely by definition, yes I think that's quite obvious. You're splitting straws here; "reads like an advertisement" is an abridged form of "Reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". How could it possibly read like an advertisement, yet, still read more like an encyclopaedic entry than an advert; short answer, it cannot. Both the quotee I provided from the AfC Wikiproject page (which is an actual criterion, but, whatever) and the one provided by Enterprisey would cover precisely what La Mona is referring to, I can safely assume that she was referring to the helper script though since it's far more in-line with what she said. I gave my opinion with examples from LabArchives, and I agree with La Mona's assessment, it read like an advertisement and peacocked as hard it could. I've been through a bunch of GA assessments recently, so, my expectations may be exceeding that needed for the article to exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't me who chose to use the word "precisely" to defend a misreading of the AfC guidelines; that was how LaMona chose to dismiss the concerns I tried to raise with her, which attitude is why we're here. So far as teh quote you gave, you seem to have overlooked the word "blatant". But no, AfC is not supposed to set the bar at the same height as set by GA. That's also part of the reason why we're here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

By straw splitting I was referring to Enterprisey's quote and what La Mona said, the quote I gave is more restrictive as you point out. In-so-far as La Mona is concerned, her declining of the article is the least issue, I agree that the dismissive attitude that she seems to take with editor's concerns and her attribution of this thread to "sexism" are far more concerning. I have only had one interaction with her outside of this thread and it wasn't in the most pleasant of circumstances either. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, the actual criteria/decline reasons that the helper script uses are at {{AFC submission/comments}}. The "advertisement" one (under advert) goes like this: This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I note that this criterion has been around since at least September 2008 with no changes. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 15:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That guideline is fine as long as the reviewer reads all of it including the Encyclopedia articles ... should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. The article on LabArchives has 15 references, 1 of which is to the LabArchives' own blog, and 3 are to BioMed Central blog, which leaves 11 to independent sources that certainly don't look dodgy at first glance. I really think reviewers that reject such an article (which is almost certain to survive AfD) need to understand that if articles "do read a little like advertisements", but have decent sourcing, they ought to be published so that more eyes can be on them to fix up the flaws. If someone removed "many" and got "LabArchives collaborated with educational institutions" (followed by refs that attest to that), would you still say that is weaseling? The same goes for the other peacock phrases - as long as the sources are there, the article needs editing, not deletion. Look at Hickies (shoes): 15 references, not all equal quality, but include Forbes, Bloomberg, Footwear News, USA Today - all significant coverage. The sources are there, whatever happened to WP:SOFIXIT? It's never going to happen while articles with clear potential are kept locked up in limbo by reviewers far outreaching their brief. When reviewers get complaints that they are holding back reasonable articles, they might at least consider the possibility that it's not a conspiracy with a hidden agenda out to get them, but a genuine concern for new editors and articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You're half right there, yes publishing a flawed article does allow more eyes to see it and potentially fix it. However, you're forgetting that we have deletionists in our ranks as well. There's a chance that the flawed article will be seen and fixed, and, there's a chance (quite possibly greater chance) that it will be seen and put up for deletion at AfD or just quietly PRODed. That's why these articles are stopped at AfC, it is a rather annoying process and relatively strict in nature, but, as has been said, if it fails an AfC check and you disagree with the assessment you can publish it yourself by moving it to mainspace or ask somebody else to look at it as well. As to your comment about removing "many" would it still be weaseling, yes it would, just more subtle. My question would still be "which ones". If for example it said (and was reliably sourced) "LabArchives collaborated with educational institutions, including University ABC, College BBC and Whathaveyou Tech (or some indication of what institutions it has collabed with) then I would go back and say, okay it's not weaseling anymore because something meaningful and potentially useful has actually been said. As to the last bit of your statement; correct, and I think La Mona responded incorrectly here. I do note, however, that being taken to AN/I is stressful to most people. Keep in kind that AN/I is for conduct issues that often result in administrative action, and, you came here with the intention of administrative action being levied against her (should she refuse to co-operate). I'll repeat it again, if you disagree with her assessment and she refuses to communicate with you, either move the article to mainspace or ping another active reviewer and get their take on it. Editors should stop taking our guidelines and policies to mean laws, there are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia. Everything, from NPA to Notability are just best practices that an editor should consider adhering to. If a policy gets in the way of you contributing to Wikipedia "ignore it", WP:IAR. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I'll agree with 98% of what you just said. The first 1% I disagree with is that you are overlooking the fact that many editors submitting at AFC are newbies who do not understand when it appropriate or not to use WP:IAR. Most of the time their primary concern is with WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:COI. If we were to advise newbies to "ignore the rules" we would be inviting the Apocalypse. The second 1% I disagree with is your statement "there are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia." Any rules that require WP:Oversight are rock solid, especially those related to defamatory material, copyright vio, and deliberate user outing. Many of the rules stemming from WP:Legal are bloody fast and WP:WMF decisions are pretty damned hard. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:Oversight and WP:Legal are in the defence of actual laws in the U.S. that are applicable to Wikipedia and not so much any law that Wikipedia has itself made. I take your point though. Not all rules can simply be ignored, the ones that ensure that laws are not broken must be met. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That is untrue. No one has been canvassed by me. I have made clear on social media that I am under attack and will be leaving Wikipedia. I have asked for hugs. I have not linked to this discussion and have not posted my username (which few people know). I have every right to speak out. You cannot silence me because I will not let you do so. LaMona (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

At least two people have posted here in your support, after discussing the matter with you in public, on social media. No-one is trying to "silence" you; you were invited to respond first on your user page, resulting in the exchanges RexxS and I describe, and then invited to comment here. Your response to the latter began "I actually have no reply because there is really nothing to reply to" and ended "...I have much better things to do, and therefore choose not to engage". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No one discussed it with me, and I never advised anyone to participate. But thousands of people read the post. It was even retweeted internationally. Here's what I said: "I have been gamergated off of Wikipedia. It's ugly. Very ugly. I need some hugs!" If anyone decided to come here, it was at their own volution. This is so ugly that I would not subject my friends to it. I'm kinder than that. LaMona (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"gamergated"? (For the record, LaMona's claim of no discussion is false.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, but I did give you the information that "reads like an advertisement" is one of the options in AFCH, and that if you disagree with that you should discuss it on the AFC notice board. That you bring it up here again to use against me is less than honest. It has nothing to do with me, it is a commonly used option. LaMona (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I included a link to the full discussion in my OP. Anyone who cares to may follow that link, and see for themselves whether or not my comment is accurate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

More to the point, no experienced editor —legit or UDPE—uses draft space or AfC. Only innocent newbies who think it's a rule. Then they get their heads bit off. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, that's why I took to reminding RexxS that AfC is an optional choice and that the editor doesn't need to adhere to it so strictly. I get the function of AfC and that it is intended to help new editors create an article, but, it seems, to some degree, to be having quite the opposite effect because a start-class article will be declined through the AfC venue whereas it should be accepted. The requirements that some reviewers have are overly strict and it seems that an expectation for a pass are at the B-class or even GA-class standard for a brand new article. I've seen an article with well over 100 citations be declined due to the tone of the article, yes the tone of the article could be improved and no this does not have to come from the creator of the article. It's an article that couldn't possibly be deleted through AfD (let alone CSD or PROD) and is still being declined. AfC is quite a burden to get through for some editors and doubly so if they are new to Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I have seen non-innocent newbie paid editors use AFC. As to innocent newbie editors, I will agree that they don't deserve to be bitten, but I will add that most, not all, of them are clueless. Some editors come to AFC after their articles have already been speedy-deleted, often for no credible claim of significance or for blatant promotion. It isn't true that only innocent newbies use AFC. (If new editors think that AFC is required, then I agree that the wording should be changed to remind them that it is only strongly encouraged. It should be encouraged because it is very hard to a newbie editor, even after playing The Wikipedia Adventure, to create a new article with proper references. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC))

I also disagree. I am by no means a "newbie" (having a long history as an IP-only editor) but I recently started some new articles and have found the DraftSpace a safer place to get my article off the ground without having to fend off hordes of CSD/PROD/AFD tags. I edit slowly and intermittently as time allows. Before, when I was an anon editor, I had started a couple articles in MainSpace with the help of a couple editors who created the pages for me. In one case I was gone for a few days and came back to find it died by CSD execution, and in the other case I was away almost two weeks and came back just in time to save that one from the firing squad. The first one had to be resurrected and for an anon that is a pain since userfying the page is not generally an option for an IP account. I guess what I am saying is that AFC is a great tool for slower-paced editors like me who need a little more time to develop the article. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Question About This Thread

Is there a reason why this thread needs to continue here, which is a forum for administrative action? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Actual fixes

• Some things everybody can immediately improve

only a few of the experienced people here actually do reviewing, which tends to leave it for the relative beginners. Everyone concerned with any aspect of article quality or attracting and helping new editors or removal of spam should participate a little in this also.

• Some things are already fixed

We established a moderate but practical edit requirement for those wanting to do AfC reviewing (the credit for this goes mostly to Kudpung

We cleared up the immense and discouraging backlog from 2 years ago

We established a speedy criterion for material no longer being worked on

A few people who monopolized the project and preventing minor improvements have moved on.

• Some things are being done

A variety of technical and interface improvements are being devised, some requiring just local programming, but some requiring the Foundation-- to make suggestions go to WT:AFCh or WT::AFC

The list of incompetent or vanished editors who use the script is gradually being purged

• Some things can be easily done, and probably will be done

An increase in the edit requirements for reviewing

Consistency in instructions for starting articles

Elimination of various devices used to bypass review of new articles and drafts, used mostly by promotional editors

• Some things are more difficult and will require considerable planning and consensus in the near future

A unification of AFC and NPP, with a high requirement for both, and an integrated landing page for new articles

Dealing with a few established editors who use unacceptable standards, such as not accepting stubs or even requiring GA quality

• Some things can never be done

Consistency in reviewing standards, any more than there is consistency in AfD. Every editor at WP is basically free to do what they like, and we have no way of asserting authority except in gross deviations

Consistency in what articles actually make it into WP. AfD is erratic, and its incurably erratic, for it relies of the local consensus of whoever wants to join the discussion.

Stability in the rules. Since we make the rules, we can interpret them however a consensus may please, and we can make whatever exception have consensus. The only alternative is deciding content by a top-down hierarchy, or a dictator. Both can be done, but neither would be Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicely organized DGG! I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as where this discussion goes from here per my proposed action #3 (close and refer for policy discussion). How about taking your above text in this section and copying it over to start a special subpage under either the AFC WikiProject or the Village Pump for a community-wide discussion. Personally I think the Pump is a better choice because AfC affects the entire encyclopedia. Of course that discussion will bring out the anti-AFC opinions as well and perhaps at least some of those concerns can be successfully addressed in the process. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

DGG's list is being discussed at User talk:DGG#AFC redux. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Who I am

Since you've all been talking about me I thought it might be good for you to know who I am. Much of this is visible, but I have been on Wikipedia since 2006 and have nearly 20,000 edits. Many of those are through AfC where I regularly made formatting and other fixes to first-time articles. I reviewed less than 4000 drafts, but that is because I often spent at least a half hour on a draft trying to get it closer to acceptance. I am a librarian, with about 45 years in that field, and am in my 6th decade. I have written two books, scores of articles, and have given dozens of talks, including such places as Singapore, Tasmania, Copenhagen, Rome. My blog has had over half a million views; my twitter feed over 1000 followers, mostly librarians. They all now know about this incident, although not the details, just that I have been attacked. My website gets hundreds of hits a day, mainly people downloading things I've written and made available, because I believe strongly in open access. I have been an advocate of libraries participating in Wikipedia, but obviously I am no more. Ironically, this week was to be a major meeting between the Wikimedia Foundation and library groups. I have informed them of this attack, its nature, and that I no longer advise anyone to engage with Wikipedia - at least not until there is a mechanism to prevent this kind of thing happening. Those of you who like to destroy will not care, but I believe others will. I have advised the library group that they must make a strong statement about safety, especially safety for vulnerable groups, before they will see Wikipedia as an ally. Libraries are strong advocates of freedom and equality. If those of us who care about equality make a stand, it is possible that changes can be made. I would welcome that new, kinder Wikipedia. For those who have not seen it, I highly recommend this article [64] written by a self-proclaimed "CIS white male" about Wikipedia's sexual politics and how they affect article content. In the world we have today, with a rise of white power and a political and personal war on women, quick change may not be possible, but we must at least start the ground work for a better future. An important part of that groundwork is speaking out. This I have done. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh ffs, Wikipedia is not a battleground and you know this has nothing to do with sexism. Against whom are you speaking out here, not one person has done anything even close to deserve the label of sexist. I have no issue with equality and sharing with the opposite sex and no bloody issue not being a sexist twat. If you cry sexism at every little argument what will inevitably happen is that the word sexist will become a dilute meaningless label, and those who suffer from sexist behaviour from actual misognyists will have no platform to stand on because too many people have been crying wolf. Get over yourself, this is beyond sad. I defended your reviews on the grounds that they were appropriate, and still believe you did the right thing with those reviews, but to come here twice and cry sexism, is ludicrous and shameful. Feel free to take whatever actions you think are appropriate, but, try to remember (and I mean this sincerely) we're all volunteers, I don't want you to walk away any more than most other editors here. Stay and accept that other opinions exist, or, walk away and live in your bubble of "everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic, and you have to point it all out." And then throw the label of Not All at everything else. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't use the "S" word - I talked about safety. Safety from attack. Safety for everyone. There ARE sexual politics, and we know there are, and the article (if you would read it) has to do with the content of articles. I don't know why the "S" word is such a trigger. We also care about racism, equality for for those with disabilities - equality for everyone, and safety for everyone. Yet you continue to attack. That in itself is proof that this is not a safe place. Not for anyone. And why would I want to stay with people who respond to me as you did? You would rather that everyone be silent, and is the saddest bubble of all. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't need to use the s word, your tone coupled with your previous comment told me everything I needed to hear. "political and personal war on women" <- what else is this but a reference to a system of biased sexism against women? No, I don't want people to be silent, go for it, join the 3rd wave feminism movement and be as active as you like about it. I won't render any opinion on it. Wikipedia is not the platform to try and push your beliefs. Sorry, I may have reacted to fiercely to your comment and with my own personal biases, but, I stand by what I said. I don't hate you, nor am I so sour as to not move on, I feel you labelled quite a few innocent people as sexist and a threat to the safety of women who didn't deserve it with your posts. If you honestly believe that this community has slighted you in some way, then what other choice is left but to say goodbye to it. Sorry, I don't see what your complaint is, I understand AN/I is stressful and that you feel hurt by it, and no, other than a warning no action was even on the table against you (and that warning was solely for your comment here previously), you could have read it for what it was - a complaint about your strictness at AfC - and moved on. If I may also add ever so slightly, a question for you to ponder. You asked why the S word is such a trigger, well I respond with a question. If I casually labelled you a racist (as you did us as sexist only a couple days ago) because of your belief that white power dominates all facets of life, would you feel any less triggered? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@LaMona: Open access is built on the principal that all information should be free to all people, not restricted or filtered by arbitrary decisions. You say you told people about the incident but not the details. Why not the details? Are you afraid those same people will find that given all the facts they might disagree with your interpretation of events? You say you "believe strongly in open access," yet you deliberately filter the facts while at the same time telling a one-sided story of being attacked and then instigating an anti-Wikipedia campaign within the librarian community. That is the textbook definition of wikt:hypocrisy and you know it. Shame on you! Did you also tell your community of librarians that you violated one of our most essential rules of collegiate behavior by assuming in bad faith the motives of editors strictly based on their gender? Did you tell them you further violated WP collegiate behavior policies by making personal attacks against other editors without evidence? Did you tell them that you deliberately exceeded the mandate and guidelines of the AFC process to achieve your own personal agenda of "higher quality" articles? Did you tell them that you ignored the official dispute resolution process by contemptuously refusing to engage in open dialogs with editors who had concerns -- not about you the person -- about your behavior as an editor? If not then you are a hypocrite of the highest order. Yes that is a personal attack and I welcome any admin to discipline me as they see appropriate but at least I have the evidence to back up every single word of it. I strongly encourage the WMF to share links to this discussion with every librarian they are scheduled to meet with and let those librarians make up their own minds as to the truth of your claim of being attacked. Part of the groundwork of "open access" is encouraging full disclosure and that is exactly what I have done. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• FYI If anyone should continue this attack off-Wiki, I am letting you know now that I will make all such communications very public. It seems only fair to warn you of this ahead of time. LaMona (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Publicize away. Maybe someone in broader cyberspace will help you see how crazy you seem. You're not being attacked, other than for your nonsense insistence that you're being attacked. EEng 19:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• • LaMona I am also a woman, and a feminist over 50, and a 10-year editor with OVER 90,000 edits, having creating over 200+ articles and having 50+ articles at GA or FA status. My real life resume is also just fine (I choose not to engage in On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog games here), and I happen to really love libraries. So, having done the dueling resume review, I'm calling you on your nonsense; you clearly are not one to judge what quality content looks like on wikipedia. I think it's high time for you to listen up and stop the blame game. Looks like you have created about 22 very short, start-class articles, and I am not finding anything you've done that is GA or FA class. 20,000 edits in 10 years? You have no clue how this place works with a low edit count like that! I have tapped the edges of the real Gamergate problem, I work frequently to address the actual systemic bias problem on Wikipedia, and I can tell you — quite firmly — that your problems are entirely self-inflicted and have ZERO to do with sexism, "white power", or a war on women. You need to let go of this red herring and stop playing the victim here, because you aren't. (Now, if you are being harassed off-wiki, that is another matter and a serious one, but I am not seeing it in this thread or elsewhere on-wiki). You are being called out for holding AfC writers to an inconsistent and at times ridiculous standard, by criteria that you don't properly comprehend, and then when criticized you don't look at your own behavior, but instead point fingers at others. Users such as RexxS and Pigsonthewing have often been good supporters of women on-wiki and supportive of work to add women's topics into wikipedia's article space. You are picking on the wrong people, attacking allies, and generally sending out red herrings. Time to stop. Now. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • LaMona, as someone new to this squabble I don't think you are helping your case here. This began as a discussion in which people were unsure if you might have been too snippy and bad at interacting with new editors, a discussion in which many people felt that your actions had merit. You have a lot of experience here and good actions to do would be to demonstrate your ability to keep cool and defuse tension, by explaining your position and (if necessary) acknowledging that you might have made a mistake - which is fine, I think most people who interact with new editors look at their actions and think we could have handled them better in retrospect, I know I do.
      Your response has been to lash out with ad hominem, debating-society tactics and accusing your critics of sexism in a discussion that had not mentioned your gender once before you brought it up. This does nothing but confirm your critics' views that you are unstable and not the right person to present a public face to Wikipedia to new editors. I don't recommend that you leave Wikipedia, as goodness knows we need talented editors from a range of perspectives, but I do urge you to just take a break from it all. Blythwood (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Is it ok to lie and manipulate to push your own opinion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) And Closed for the fourth time. ANI is not for content disputes see DRN for content dispute resolution. The IP's question has been asked and answered.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed for the third time. ANI is not a location to gain ground in a content dispute.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

When a thread is closed at ANI, it should remain that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

---

I was struck that some editors think that lies and manipulations are human characteristics so it's ok for wikipedia editors to use them. I'll just leave it here if someone is more interested. [65] 141.136.224.13 (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Care to explain a little more than this oddly vague accusation of an unnamed party lying, than just providing a link? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 07:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Notifying @SMcCandlish: of this discussion, as he is apparently the editor in question. Recommend closing with no action, as his comments were fine in context. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This should just be closed. Looks like brinkmanship more than anything else.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

For the record this thread is about FkpCascais which is very obvious based on this and also something that has been brought up more than once [66] with no action but a few editors brought concerns that the editor is lacking in collegiate behaviour and is very WP:BATTLEGROUND. I don't think this is the case here, so support the close, it just seems to be relevant information that has been left out and perhaps FkpCascais should be notified, or not, defer to better judgement. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

All is explained in the referenced section. I'm sorry you didn't bother to read it. The case is that one editor had provided a quote from the source some time ago and now he claims that he wasn't familiar with the source. Not only that , but he now claims that the source doesn't even say what he had himself earlier referenced. That's a direct lie and manipulation to me. If you approve that kind of behavior you are free to close this topic. I just pointed out his earlier comments. This is not about me. In fact, you don't have to read my comments at all. The editor in question knows he's under warning. At first he tried to manipulate and disagree with "not notable" argument. When that blew off, he went into direct lying thinking that noone will notice. I will gladly help, but you should read it with understanding yourself. I'm not the one manipulating here. 15:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.224.13 (talk)

Observation that some editors will lie is not condoning dishonesty, any more than observing that car wrecks happen and that we should have safety belts is incitement to treat the streets as a demolition derby. This thread was closed once already, so closing it again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

This was not about you SMcCandlish ☺, although there's also something wrong with inertly looking on such behavior as admin. I didn't notice you are an admin and that you had participated in the discussion. You making an observation that someone is doing something in bad faith and is like a police officer making an observation that someone is robbing a bank. Even the ordinary editors should react but some of them think that "it's a common human characteristic" so it's allowed to do that. I don't think there will ever be a more clear case of someone directly lying and manipulating to push his own opinion. Bdw, I'm not interested in the topic of that discussion. I'm only interested in the case where someone who is sharing the same personal accusations for which he was already warned by lying the source says something which he well know it doesn't since he himself had quoted the source a few months ago. Also, you I must protest for so quick closures by you and the other admin. This report hasn't developed and the admin who had initially closed it has completely missed the point. You as the one who is familiar with that discussion should have warned him that he had missed the point, instead of closing it again. 89.164.170.216 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: @Cameron11598: @Euryalus: @Tazerdadog: @Serialjoepsycho: @Mr rnddude: as some admins have completely missed the point I'm pinging you. If you don't want to bother by reading the referenced discussion you should at least leave this open so others can read it. 89.164.170.216 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:POINTy. If I had a question at all it would be why you keep hopping IP's? People can read it without it being open until it's sent to the archives. It's time to drop the stick here. Take the RFC in question to WP:ANRFC and ask for a close by an uninvolved editor if you somehow disagree with the change that was implemented.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been taken to ANRFC [67] already. There's nothing else to do here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

As I said, this is not about content dispute but about pov pushing and personal attacks against a warning. I couldn't care less about the content dispute present in that rfc. My isp is frequently changing my ip, I don't know why, but I think it's obvious that I'm the same person.89.164.170.216 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(EC) This is simply childish. Reviewing the discussion there is no reason to determine that there is a lie at all. There was most likely a misunderstanding of the source. "I was shocked because he knew everything about me. I think my mother was a Croat, although he was born in Belgrade, because all its Vinkovci and there I have a lot of relatives." is my translation of the source. And it would be easy for them to stumble and see this as Djokovic mother being born in Belgrade instead of Djokovic himself. It is time for you to drop the stick, the horse is dead. If there is anything for an admin to review, it is whether or not to block your access to editing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

IP-only SPA reverting changes done to DataCore page

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

---

Few unpleasant facts were added to DataCore Software page. Funny enough they are referenced by same sources singing diphirambs to DataCore before. Few IP-only accounts traced back to Fort Lauderdale where DataCore HQs are located now are trying to revert changes instead of rephrasing them or whatever. Sock puppets and Conflict of Interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataCore_Software

Please help to keep Wikipedia tidy and unbiased. Thanks! NISMO1968 (talk)

Third IP-only SPA joined ;( NISMO1968 (talk)

 Question: which Ip's are you referring to?  Note: you are required to notify them of this discussion using the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

List

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:64.129.87.118

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2601:58B:100:4B0B:484F:1CD8:FBD1:9E1D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2601:58B:100:4B0B:6958:6F7:F5E4:BC21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:209.60.65.6

Cameron, I've notified all 4 throwaway SPAs. Thank you for your time and help! NISMO1968 (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A few additional points: 1) Those are all simply IPs, so it's difficult to call them throwaway WP:SPAs. I wouldn't exactly call Special:Contributions/64.129.87.118 throwaway anyway even if an account although the editing history is slightly concerning.

2) You've called stuff WP:vandalism [68], but I suggest you take a re-read of the guideline as I'm not seeing any clear cut vandalism. In fact what I'm seeing looks a lot like a WP:content dispute which means all of you need to stop editing and continue discussing on the talk page.

3) If you suspect WP:paid editing or a WP:COI, it'll be best to notify the IPs of our policies and guidelines first, but at the very least you'll need to present any evidence here or at WP:COI/N for anything to come from that. (I've notified the longer term IP.)

4) While this isn't the place to discuss content disputes, I have to say the IPs come out more favourably in the core of the dispute surrounding the withdrawn results as I'm not seeing any suggestion in any of the 3 sources that the results were withdrawn because "actually using synthetic and incompatible configurations to cheat the benchmark". Instead the only info discussing the reason for withdrawal suggests the IP's version is correct. If you have sources demonstrating the contrary, you should add them to the article rather than just continually reverting to something which isn't actually supported by the sources. If competitors had expressed concern and this was widely covered in WP:RS, there may be merit to mention this in the article without implying it was related to the withdrawn results if there's no evidence for that. Again this is why you need to discss on the talk page.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention but as always, if you can't resolve the content dispute amongst yourselves, the solution is some form of WP:dispute resolution not edit warring or ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nil thank you for wasting your time on this! Let's go back to your remarks one-by-one: 1) You're absolutely correct about User:64.129.87.118 and his (her?) posts history here Special:Contributions/64.129.87.118. All posts except the very first (IP shared?) one are about DataCore. IP address is traced back to Ft. Lauderdale where DataCore is based. Too many crossovers IMHO! 2) It's clearly User:64.129.87.118 used "vandalism" term to revert initial updates done by User:APS (Full Auto). Please check history here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DataCore_Software&action=history for more info. 3) There's clearly a WP:COI but as there are 4 separate accounts currently it's going to take quite some time to glue all parts together. Things are on hold currently! 4) I'm personally OK with the wording as long as it keeps User:APS (Full Auto) happy so I'm not going to argue here. I'm not OK with anybody using multiple throwaway accounts just to destroy contribution done by somebody else. If we'll keep things unchanged we'll create a very questionsble and a very dangerous precedent. Thanks again! NISMO1968 (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

My block

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

---

I blocked Shivayves (talk · contribs · count) for WP:NLT. The user made two comments on my Talk page in reference to my revert of the user at Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. In the first long comment, they said in part, "Wikipedia is not extralegal territory and as a lawyer it is my opinion that you should give this some consideration." Shortly after in a second comment (I hadn't responded), they added, "I also want to make clear that I will file an official complaint to Wikipedia if you keep ignoring the facts. In addition, I am also open to take legal measure." In my view, the first comment wasn't sufficient to constitute a legal threat, but the second, in particular when combined with the prior comments, was.

I was busy doing something else, and I blocked the user fairly quickly. In hindsight, I probably should have reported the user here and let another administrator take action. I know that WP:INVOLVED has the following "loophole": "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." However, honestly, I didn't give the matter enough thought before blocking.

I can't quite bring myself to unblock, although I will if that's deemed to be the best course of action. Instead, I bring the block here for review. And my apologies for creating more drama than necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Good block. He should stay blocked until (or if) he recants and disavows those comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block No question. Katie^talk 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block I saw the post and would have brought it here had Shivayves not already been blocked. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse Block- Pretty clear legal threat.--Church ^Talk 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block - The 2nd comment is a legal treat no doubt about it and should be blocked for it. –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block: Clearly a legal threat. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Legal threats should not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block - A pretty explicit legal threat there. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

90.217.128.130 need talk privileges revoked

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

---

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

Please revoke blocked user 90.217.128.130's talk page privileges. I have not notified the IP. Jim1138 (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, a bit of WP:RVDL might be in order. Jim1138 (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Editor: Special:Contributions/Avento55

Concern: Editor is persistently redacting AfD comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Atencio:

• diff 2
• diff 1

User has been warned several times about inappropriate editing on their Talk page: User talk:Avento55. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Previous warnings, while they've gone all the way up to level 4, were for removing the afd tag from the page, not for removing comments from the AFD. As it happens, the same series of templates is used for both, so though I'm not going to block immediately (any other admin is of course free to), I'll watch the AFD and do so if he tries it even one more time. —Cryptic 03:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• The AfD is closed. Cryptic, you were correct in your comments at the AfD: typically, admins really don't need notes about SPAs and stuff like that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

James scranman Kelly (disambiguation)

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

---

On this newly created page, there have been several accounts editing the page at a time. The following accounts are:

• Oohohoho (talk · contribs)
• JKelloScranManFanClan (talk · contribs)
• Reece24 (talk · contribs)
• JKelloScranManFanClan2 (talk · contribs)
• Walmsletscranman (talk · contribs)
• AdamBR24 (talk · contribs)
• Doggryuryryryry (talk · contribs)

I've tagged the page under the "A7" criteria for speedy deletion, and multiple of these accounts have contested the deletion and have been removing the speedy deletion template. There may be more accounts that I have not seen yet, but this could be a meat-puppetry mass attack... Can an administrator please look into this...? Thanks. 73.96.113.65 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I rather doubt that this is meatpuppetry. I also rather doubt that this is worth the effort of an SPI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The statement "James is an a musician and the lead guitarist of unknown metal band Dog" deserves to be enshrined as an example of WP:NOT. MarnetteD|Talk 00:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Article deleted, moles whacked. —Cryptic 01:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I.P. Vandal 216.15.21.210

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

---

216.15.21.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persistent vandalism of mainspace pages and my user/talk pages after multiple final warnings. He is currently of a 31 hour block from 18 June 2016. However he continues to vandalize pages like Ellicott City, Maryland and deliver personal attacks on My userpage and my talk page. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I dealt with this at AIV ten minutes ago. For the record, talking to blocked IPs such as this is not usually a good idea. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Then for some reason, it doesn't show he is blocked anywhere on the talk page. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 18:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It is visible in the red box when you edit their talk page, or look at their contributions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't see that. Thanks. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 18:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletions 11 days old to 7 days old

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

---

Hello - requesting admin(s) close stale Proposed deletions. For example, for 2 Aug 2016 there are 27 pages still not deleted [69] and for 3 Aug 2016 there are 35 pages still not deleted [70].

Below are the others

4 August (31 pages) [71]

5 August (53 pages) [72]

6 August (67 pages) [73] and I noticed that some on this date have not passed into 7 days but other articles have.

----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it is up to the admin or admins doing the closures to decide the particular fate of each article - hopefully that goes without saying. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Doing... but this will take a while to get through (additional volunteers welcome). -- Euryalus (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Chicbyaccident continued editing issues

This editor has been a disruptive editor for quite some time. Every time I turn around, he's done something else problematic. The below are just examples - read the move logs. Some of this is old in terms of editing, but some changes I just found today, because no discussion was ever held on any of these edits. If proper editing behavior had been followed, I would not have had to find these routinely months later.

The key move, however, is this: he moved a pre-existing dab page that was six years old to another dab page [74] along with several related moves including a related cat on June 11, after being warned not to do so a week earlier. he fact that no one caught it doesn't mean it gets a pass. More evidence is collapsed below if needed.

More supporting evidence of the pattern of long-term, unilateral, undiscussed editing

Template:Infobox Grand Lodge - unilaterally moved longstanding template [75] Template:Freemasonry - unilaterally moved longstanding template [76] created Category:Masonic orders and moved everything from existing Category:Masonic organizations into it, then made the org cat a sub [77] - now at TfD moved Order of the Amaranth to Order of the Amaranth (freemasonry) for no reason - no other one exists. [78]. Had to request a move back, which was done. Created "Orientalist fraternalism" with no basis to do so - TfD is here Created an empty cat for another organization we didn't have an article on, TfD here [[79] - redirected the "sail types" template for no apparent reason other than caps; no reason was given. moved the category "Grand_Masters of orders of knighthood" to "Grand masters of dynastic orders of knighthood" [80], with no explanation of the need to disambiguate. This TfD is the result of Chic creating a template despite no consensus being gained to do so. Tried to merge Franciscans to a new page Franciscan orders in Protestantism, but was reverted [81] Unilaterally moved Template:Rosary to Template:The rosary sidebar [82] - as I've just found this, I've asked for it to be reverted. There was also a unilateral move of Template:The Rosary footer to Template:The rosary footer) eight hours after [83] rosary sidebar was moved to rosary footer.

Did editors discuss adequately? I think so:

• June 2015: Talk page discussion on a change was basically met with "go ahead and put it back if you want" [84]
• October 2015 ANI: I bruoght this to ANI, where it was classified as "content disagreement" [85]. Some of the material there I have provided here, but there are other items listed in there.
• November 2015 talk page discussion (by someone else) on CbA's page regarding an edit where Chic dropped 12 categories out of an article with this edit was also dismissed: [86]
• December 2015 ANI started by someone else about the unilateral moving [87] was dismissed.
• A discussion on talk in June 2016 was basically met with "I edit by BRD and you can fix what you want", [88]. As can be seen, that was when he was also finally warned to stop moving pages.

More telling is that there is very little discussion held between this editor and any other editors, period. The editor has no interest in collaborating with other editors; he simply wants to be left alone to do what he likes, and that would be fine...if the edits weren't a problem, if the user didn't expect others to clean up his mess, and if the same behavior wasn't ongoing despite multiple people saying otherwise. BRD is not an acceptable basis for moves of anything (or any other edits that require outside assistance to be fixed), nor is it acceptable when the moves and edits are spurious. The editor is not willing to edit collaboratively, has shown this over a long stretch of time, and clearly will not stop doing what he is doing without being made to do so. MSJapan (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

For someone who has been here 4 years, they should know better than to keep charging on ahead when other editors are raising objections. @Chicbyaccident: I suggest you make a statement here as this constant moving and being reverted is going to be seen as disruption. Blackmane (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. Sorry for any inconvenience occured in minority of edits. I hope you enjoyed all the rest! I am happy to try to help according to the best of my ability. Thanks for letting me know when and were perfection is possible! For the record, it would be refreshing to have this controversial user see any positive contribution in that of others for a change. Chicbyaccident (talk)

Honestly? I'm not seeing it. You make no major edits except to bulk change established categories and page titles to those of your choosing, and you do so without consensus or evidence to support it, like this: [89]. Why is this distinction important to a general reader? Why create a cat with four entries? You've effectively stripped almost everything out of the generic Category:Franciscan orders to make subcats like Category:Franciscan_Friars_of_the_Renewal and Category:Third Order of Saint Francis? This is only an example: here's the discussion where you were once again told to stop what you were doing, and others editors had to clean up the mess. This is what you do almost exclusively - I'm simply choosing not to paste your entire edit history in here to prove my point. This isn't positive contribution - it's you deciding on your own that your preferred method of organization is the one that everyone else needs to follow. Your user analysis is very telling - thousands of edits a month, and 6% on all talk pages combined. You're not here to collaborate with others - you're here to do what you want, and everyone else has to live with it. MSJapan (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Chicbyaccident - Thank you for responding and for taking the feedback so positively and in such a civil manner. Looking at your logs, it's clear that you do a lot of page moves. While many, I'm sure, have been good moves, it appears that many of your page moves and edits have been made without discussion and has caused some frustration with other editors. If a significant portion of your page moves are constantly being left for others to undo or fix (especially if a discussion wasn't had and one could have avoided creating that cleanup work, which is usually the case), this can be seen as disruptive to the project. I won't poke or pile on any thoughts about your far past; that's not fair to do. But ignoring objections and continuing to carry on as if they don't exist is problematic behavior. I highly recommend and encourage you to slow down a few notches, seek discussion and consensus with others in these areas first, and collaborate openly and constructively with others that disagree or have objections. Nobody is perfect; we are completely okay with mistakes. It's a normal part of learning. But when we don't make efforts to correct those mistakes, that is where the tolerance will typically end. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident, on Wikipedia we collaborate with other users. For a collaborative environment, it is also very important to hear what others are saying. While other editors might assume that your changes were done in good faith, it also important for you to demonstrate good faith. As a step forward, may I suggest that from now on, instead of moving pages yourself, you restrict yourself to requesting page moved (following the instructions on WP:RM#CM)? In addition, for changing long stable templates, you could inform the Wikiproject first (or discuss with editors who have previously contributed to the template)? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems the editor in question is going to hide until the matter disappears, and that's not fair to the community. There has been no admission of wrongdoing by the editor despite the comments from others that there is a problem, and more importantly, no statement by the editor that the behavior will not recur, nor even a statement that the editor will actually collaborate with others in the future. MSJapan (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

IP User: 99.194.49.63

99.194.49.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

IP: 99.194.49.63 has engaged in edit warring at the [90]. The content he is attempting to add has already been discussed in the talk section and has reached a consensus. The material he is attempting to re-add is against consensus. Aside from that, the use has made no attempt to reopen the discussion in the talk section and just engages in edit warring. Was about to add a warning template to his talk page, however, it is already full of warnings, so it is nothing that has not been communicated to him already. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This user made some questionable changes to Luxury yacht without any edit summary, which I reverted. I checked the IP's contributions and found several unexplained removals of sourced material, for example [91] and [92]. Removal of sourced material with no edit summary or misleading summary seems disruptive to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Iryna Harpy wants to ban me

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

---

For evading a ban that has already expired, in addition to removing uncited material, something she considers disruptive. I would like someone to look at the article for Arab Christians. She is reverting my good faith edits for no good reason. -2601:546:8103:290:44EC:F9B:A7C7:FD2C (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

She is perfectly entitled to remove uncited material just as anyone else is. It is you who keeps adding it who is being disruptive. I would watch out for any WP:BOOMERANGs that happen to be flying around. --Elektrik Fanne 13:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, absolutely wrong Elektrik Fanne he has provided reliable sources. and I have warned Iryna. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 13:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. My agolopies - I had the interaction the wrong way around. Though my point about deleting uncited material was valid (whoever does it). --Elektrik Fanne 13:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup and thanks Shall we close this case?VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 13:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Has User:Iryna Harpy actually filed at WP:AIV or WP:SPI? If so, let it run. If not, this may still be a content dispute. Read the dispute resolution policy, discuss on the article talk page, and, if that does not work, follow a content dispute resolution procedure such as Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Iryna should have a chance to respond. VarunFEB2003, please do not close threads at ANI as based on what I've seen, you need more experience editing here before doing so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh, No. Don't close the case yet, far too premature. If I may add, your warning, was a bit subpar. You started off by stating that you were going to "give you some advice" before finishing off with "remember my advice or you might regret" which came off very much like a threat. If you're going to give a warning be explicit about it, such as; your reversion of good faith and correct edits at such and such article have become disruptive, please desist and take the discussion to the talk page if you disagree with the edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Neiln, I have never closed an ANI case! And yes Rnddude I'll take care with my english usage and see to that I end with what I started to say. Thanks. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 17:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the IP editor has created him/herself an account. I asked him/her to create an account.[93] And shortly afterwards, a message appeared on my talk page saying that one had been created.[94]

I think that both editors have acted in good faith, and tried to do the right thing. Both have been told that they have reached their limit on reverting that page for today (Iryna Harpy[95] IP editor[96][97]) Both have respected the warning. This is a good sign.

I see that another editor has reverted the changes made by the IP editor.[98] If LebanonisArab (the former IP editor) wishes to change this, then he/she will have to explain his/her reasoning on the article talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Talk about a load of hoopla breaking out while I was (literally) sleeping. Firstly, VarunFEB2003, I would suggest that you gain some more editing experience and learn how to interpret both page histories and how to geolocate an IP before you start doing things like this and this. If you'd paid attention to the relevant article's history, you would have noted that this IP, this IP, and this IP are one and the same user. Secondly, (this is also for Elektrik Fanne's edification), please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:CAREFUL in regards to this edit. Note, also, that the second edit was a refactoring of long standing content which was, indeed, cited (not to mention that the edit summary was incorrect as Maronites are, indeed, an ethnoreligious group).

The process by which to challenge content is WP:BRD, not WP:BATTLEGROUND. The user account set up by the IP has now plunged back into BATTLEGROUND mode here, and doesn't understand that talk pages are for discussion, not WP:PERSONAL attacks (here).

Lastly, VarunFEB2003, I do not appreciate the advice you left on my talk page. WP:NPA applies to you, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the user has been employing multiple IPs (whether intentionally or not is unclear). VarunFEB2003 deserves a {{trout}} for their "advice", edits, and comments.

There appears to be an edit war over this material, for whatever reason. Greyshark09 and Iryna Harpy clearly disagree with the edits. I have no comment on the material itself but the comments by LebanonisArab/2601:546:8103:290:* at Talk:Arab_Christians#Copts are inappropriate. Make an RFC or go to DRN if you need to, but edit warring and name-calling is appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Trout given.74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

IP, per the orange box when filing an ANI thread ("When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."), you are required to notify the user about it. I have done so for you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• BOOMERANG IPs and account because the user continues their edit war (this time logged out): [99]. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Note possible socking by Scatach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 2601:546:8103:290:13E:DF48:57E2:696B's user talk page has an unblock request for an autoblock. Yamla declined that request saying that the autoblock appeared to be working correctly. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang They have just recently engaged in personal attacks by calling EvergreenFir a "self important dolt"[100]. They are also heavily edit warring and socking. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the latest IP and registered editor for edit warring when I was processing a request at RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you for your advice and I appreciate that trout. Maybe I should have listened to you at first, that IP seemed extremely harmless at first but I just saw the change in events and now I totally support Iryna! Yes, I'll take care in the future, and not get myself involved in ANI cases until I have enough experience. Thank you for blocking him and my extreme apoligies to Iryna whom I unnecessarily troubled a lot. Sorry Iryna! And thank you all administrators. I am leaving this case to you all, and withdrawing my comment at Iryna's talk. Many thanks and sincere regards. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 06:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this, except this for Iryna, just because you have been here for a longer time doesn't mean Varun can't give you advice. I don't care about the rest it just upset me that you think in that elitist way which is not how Wikipedia editors should act.

Also I don't see how NPA applies to Varun. 41.254.7.7 (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - as an involved party here, i would like to mention that the Arab Christians page has been attacked multiple times by one or several editors by disruptive actions, attempting to change a long-standing consensus, which can be found in 2009 discussion and 2011 discussion. In this regard, Iryna, myself and several other users have opposed non-discussed aggressive editing of IPs and single-purpose accounts for the past several days. Since the topic is delicate, controversial edits (like those discussed above), should undergo an RFC to change the scope of the article. Since the last closure in 2011, there has been a clear consensus to keep Arab Christians page as is and define Arab Christians as ethnic Arabs of Christian faith, and exclude Middle Eastern Christians of non-Arab descent (Assyrians, Armenians, Greeks); complex cases of mixed/partial Arab identity like Maronites and Copts are discussed in the article already.GreyShark (dibra) 06:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

IP-hopper

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

---

86.187.170.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest IP of the disruptive editor described here. The account I'm using is an alt account to avoid giving attention to this troll. AccountForANI (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's the third one in a week or so, how long has this problem been plaguing you (Seven years is the answer to question 1) and is there anything that can be done to address it permanently? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Little over eight years now, on and off. I've contacted the ISP a couple times, poked at some wiki bureaucrats for information regarding the availability of server-side logs; user-agent strings, connection logs, the stuff that the ISP might need to correlate traffic to a specific person, but the consensus seemed to be that without a court order, the Wikimedia foundation wasn't going to turn over logs like that, and likewise very slim chances that the ISP would play ball without any legal pressure. Tools like Twinkle weren't much use either. I took it past WP:EFR where it was initially denied, but has been picked up again now by a helpful editor here. EFR does seem to be the best option. AccountForANI (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Extra request -- Revdeletion for my accidental tagging of the the IP's userpage with a tag meant for my own user page. It's kind of important that they don't see the origin of these edits as it would alert them to my current strategy of dealing with them only through this alt. AccountForANI (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly cannot fathom how somebody can dedicate eight years of their life to make one editor's Wiki-editing experience miserable, there is no description for this that doesn't involve violating NPA and Civil. You have quite the perseverance to still be at it after this much time (the IP too, but, in the worst possible way). I hope EFR can at least improve the situation somewhat, I note that even with the abuse filter it could still end up being a game of cat and mouse. Sorry that you have to deal with this nonsense. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@AccountForANI: With this and your previous ANI complaint: if I can work out what your main account is in not much over a few milliseconds, I am sure everyone else can. You were warned on your talk page not to abuse multiple accounts and you are doing precisely that. Even so: if you wish to use this alternate account, you must unambiguously link it to each and every other account that you use. --Elektrik Fanne 16:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ffs we're not a bureaucracy Elektrik Fanne. The faster we deal with the issue (Wikistalk and Harassment) the less of a sock issue this will be. The editor has a legitimate reason for having a sock, and you did not work out who the editor was in "the first few milliseconds" as you had no idea who they were on the last AN/I thread until it was pointed out. The regulars here by now know what we're dealing with and those who don't can easily be informed. Alright, turns out we are a bureaucracy as per the talk page. If the template won't give up the information then add it, if it will, leave it off. Nvm template has been added. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As I read it, this usage is not an acceptable use per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as the alternate account is still not linked to the main account. --Elektrik Fanne 16:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You are for all intents and purposes correct. I am also taking into account the situation, as long as this account can by some facet remain separate to the main (meaning that the main account does not explicitly link to the sock, the sock can link to the main) then it would seem reasonable to take the appropriate action and place the correct tags/templates/ubx's so as to not confuse other editors into the belief that this account exists with the sole purpose of abuse. It, I would think evidently, doesn't but understand that from a strictly policy perspective it might appear as though it does. Especially if whoever comes across this is not sufficiently familiar, as editors have and will continue to. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not abusing multiple accounts. This is a legitimate attempt to avoid a stalker. I've dealt with this guy several times, including with rangeblocks, and the idea that the OP is being warned against sockpuppetry is almost nauseating. Are we going to help stop this abuse or are we not? If we aren't, let's go right ahead and blame the victim and block him for socking. If we are, let's apply a healthy dose of WP:IAR and get off our high horses. I'll see what I can do about a fresh rangeblock shortly. Katie^talk 18:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie, I feel more or less the same way, the only thing here is that, what if somebody who has no knowledge of the issue came along and drew an incorrect conclusion? it happened on the previous thread to at least two editors who apologized for casting Aspersions based on the little data they were given. Other than that, yes, let's help out here and drop the sockpuppet commandment stone for a second. Note, check EFR they're working on an abuse filter as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say we're working on an edit filter now, pretty clear given the ongoing harassment that this is the least we can do to help the editor -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Katie, starting to accuse the OP of sockpuppetry for having legtimate worries about harassment that has been going on for several years is nauseating. I would also like to add that, as clearly stated at the top of the page, this noticeboard is for administrators and experienced users, and not a playground for new and inexperienced users, no matter how much they want to help out, meaning that Elektrik Fanne, a five months old account with 742 edits (of which just under 400 are in article space, and 48 here on WP:ANI, so far), has no business commenting here in threads that don't directly concern them, especially when the comments are so totally off the mark as in this thread. Go make useful contributions on articles instead, that's the main reason we're here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar comment to Thomas W.'s. @Elektrik Fanne: you are not yet experienced enough in the ins and outs of ANI to be making these kinds of comments. You have a great deal to learn about the subtleties of policy before making bold statements like that. I've noticed a few of your comments here and they are not generally very helpful to the discussion. Blackmane (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes I am very experienced. I was editing for several years as an IP address editor before being forced by a problem with two editors who were deliberately trolling into creating an account (and I still believe they were one editor). --Elektrik Fanne 13:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Then something more than experience is lacking. Listen to what others are saying. EEng 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Has WMF Legal or WMF Trust and Safety gotten involved in this yet? The fact that this has been going on for 7 years is quite disturbing. Is this something that the foundation might better be able to handle then our local administrators/functionaries/Edit Filter Managers can? Just a thought. (I'll notify the proper WMF staff since I did mention them here shortly.) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Jalexander-WMF notified here --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Elektrik Fanne: I find it interesting how you cited WP:SOCKLEGIT, but deliberately ignore the sentence "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account" (emphasis mine). You shouldn't be citing a policy if you don't understand it yourself, full stop. Omni Flames (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think it may be worth noting that HighinBC has left a warning on AccountforANI's talk page about improper use of sockpuppets and referred to an Arbcom decision that sock puppet accounts should not involve themselves in internal discussion. I think it relevant to note that this may be a case where crossing Arbcom's decision may be necessary. I'll try to find the link to that discussion. This is the one; [101]. I assume by "discussion internal to the project" they are referring to anything not strictly dealing with articles and the article talk page. This would inc. AN/I as I read it. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn- This part of the policy is from an ARBCOM case so I don't think this would be possible--Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal I don't see why this shouldn't be accepted as a WP:LEGITSOCK Even though it doesn't under the current policy. We have WP:IAR for a reason and I think this fits the spirt of WP:IAR. My views are that it isn't necessarily the plain word text of the policy that is important but the spirit behind our policies. So if I may be Bold and propose that we as the community recognize AccountForANI an an exception to the WP:SOCK policy so long as the account is used solely in the context for dealing with this stalker. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As an arb I suggest the user email me or the committee the disclosure. Unless I misunderstand, alt accounts disclosed to arb com are permitted. I would not interpret this as a prohibited use if disclosed in this manner. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

While not a bad idea, especially where there the alt account will be used in an area of controversy, I don't see where such disclosure is required in general. EEng 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not in the least generally required, and I certainly hope most people don't do it, for we have quite enough work already. But it provides a way of dealing with restrictions and accommodating special circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what "dealing with restrictions and accommodating special curcumstances" means, but your statement that such use would not be prohibited "if disclosed in this manner" makes it sound like it would be prohibited if not disclosed, and that's not true. EEng 15:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Refer to the arbcom decision, I linked in my previous comment, that prohibits the use of sockpuppets for "discussion internal to the project" which I believe includes AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Technically yes, and perhaps a short private email to ArbCom would be a good compromise. Now, can this non-issue be dropped? An edit filter is being tested and various admins are looking at possible range blocks. We do not need to devote any more time to amateur interpretation of policy -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• So who wants to tell Lady Catherine they have not disclosed their master ;) I would also point out that the privacy section also states explicitly that alternate accounts for privacy issues are generally not linked. While this is not a 'privacy' issue as socklegit lays it out, it is another example of an exception to 'alternate accounts should always be linked'. Socklegit lists the common reasons for legit alternatives, not all of them. Finally the key part of the policy is that you should not violate any of the illegitimate uses for alternate accounts, not that you should jump through hoops when you have a stated reasonable and justifiable excuse for doing so. Now can someone close this? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• The stalker's new IP hasn't been blocked yet, should we wait or just close? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:DevilWearsBrioni is very disruptive and abusing OR and SYNTH

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

---

DevilWearsBrioni maintains a highly disruptive attitude and behavior, by raising multiple WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH accusations against other users, and maintains a highly polemic climate with his OR and SYNTH accusations to the point of having turned certain articles and pages within Wikipedia pretty unaffordable and unfriendly for the editors to contribute and work on.

First of all, he has raised a dispute in the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians, in which he kept accusing me and the User:Alexikoua for OR in spite of sources (provided both on the article itself and the article's talk page) proving that there is no OR or SYNTH, where he even edit warred with whoever objected to his accusations, in bid to impose his opinions. His refusal to be reasoned by the facts, has led him to drag us to the No Original Research Noticeboard, here: [[102]] with title "OR/SYNTH issues?" where the administrators ignored him as they found his claims/accusations very weak or unproven. However this couldn't discourage or stop him and thus, he dragged us to another noticeboard(!), this time to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, here: [[103]] with title: "Expulsion of Cham Albanians" where this time a DRN mediator, User:Iazyges, came and examined the case, listened to DevilWearsBrioni's claims, valuated the sources, and at the end, Iazyges told him crystal-clear that the sources contradict his OR/SYNTH claims and that his OR/SYNTH arguments have no ground and eventually the case on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard was resolved against him and closed.

If that Dispute Resolution Noticeboard's decission against DevilWearsBrioni wasn't enough, and if DevilWearsBrioni's insistence and stubborness with his OR and SYNTH accusations exhausting me and the other users wasn't enough of a grievance (we have been debating his accusations on 3 DIFFERENT PAGES for a VERY VERY LONG TIME, but to no avail!), he still insisted with his disruptive behavior against everyone! So after the case was finally over and a resolution came, and right when we could take a breather and move our attention to other Wikipedia articles that need our attention, he revived the debate by trying to cast doubt to the mediator Iazyge's handling of the case, by posting this: [[104]] with title: "Dispute not handled appropriately?" on the talk page of the said Noticeboard.

Eventually, mediator User:Robert McClenon came and adviced him either to "file a RfC" or "let the case go". Eventually, the mediator closed DevilWearsBrioni's "Dispute not handled appropriately?" topic. However, DevilWearsBrioni doesn't seem to let it go, and thus, he resumed his disruptive edits and now he has entered an edit war against me, mediator Iazyges, and the user Alexikoua on the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, where he is trying to add NOR tags to the article and restore his chronic NOR disputes, as seen by his edits here: [[105]], here: [[106]] and here: [[107]].

I have posted an warning on his talk page here: [[108]] with title: "Please refrain from putting more OR or SYNTH tags on Expulsion of Cham Albanians" because this is the best I can do, but given the long history of his disruptive behaviors against multiple other users and mediators, I do not know what else to do to protect my sanity against the odd nature of this case, and I am screaming for help.

I am very certain that the user DevilWearsBrioni has a full understanding of what exactly No Original Research (NOR) and Synthesis (SYNTH) are according to Wikipedia's rules, and I am certain of this, because it came to my notice that, in the past, he has raised even more NOR/SYNTH cases, on various noticeboards, as can be seen here [[109]] with title "No Original Research Policy should not take 8 years to grasp", where he raised a case against another user, and in the more recent past, at: [[110]] with title: "Trying to understand SYNTH"

Please, can someone help me and the others and stop that user DevilWearsBrioni from raising constant OR and SYNTH accusations against us? He has ruined our Wikipedia lives and I can't withstand this odd kind of persecution anymore. Lately I am seriously considering quitting the Wikipedia Project just because of all this, as the stress DevilWearsBrioni is causing with his disruptive attitude towards the other users, including me, has pushed everyone to the edge, as you can see from the tone of our messages towards that person who is not willing to ever stop.

Honestly, I seriously doubt DevilWearsBrioni will ever stop with his endless OR / SYNTH accusations. In fact, he just raised another SYNTH accusation, these days, here! [[111]] with title "Synthesis yet again".

Please, help. This user clearly does not intend to show any respect to Wikipedia's procedures and is not stopping with his SYNTH / OR accusations, even when there is consensus against him. In the light of all these disturbing actions and accidents, he should be permanently blocked from editing the page Expulsion of Cham Albanians or at least be deprived of his right of raising more SYNTH and OR accusations against the others in the future. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Could we have the WP:TLDR version? --Elektrik Fanne 16:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr - Devilwearsbrioni constantly slinging unfounded and false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH accusations at other editors to force them to comply with their wishes and to justify edit-warring whenever possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

TLDR version: What Mr rnddude said above, plus: Edit warrings, 3RR breaches, failure to reach a consensus with other users in the talk pages, disruptive edits, abuse of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, prolongation of a dispute that could otherwise have been easily settled down, refusal to abide by the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard's decissions and acting against the consensus. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And also: Abuse of OR/SYNTH tagging, which happened multiple times on the Expulsion of Cham Albanians. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Give me until tomorrow (or maybe later tonight) to respond to these accusations made against me. Thanks! DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

He appears entirely unable to accept the decision I ruled, I removed his OR tag after it had been made abundantly clear to him it was not OR, he reverted this, and, I reverted it back, I did inform him before closing the dispute that I could as per WP:M request that an admin to block, ban or otherwise sanction him, I have not given him the warning yet, He has however 3 times added in the OR tag after the dispute was resolved. Iazyges (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question and Comments – I have a question. In the discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page, the filing party, User:SilentResident, said that the subject party, User:DevilWearsBrioni, has repeatedly been raising issues about original research, and they have now brought the complaint here. What was not clear to me back there, and is still not clear, is whether this is a pattern of tendentious claims of original research on multiple articles, or whether this behavior is limited to one article, Expulsion of Cham Albanians (and possibly related articles). My advice to come here was based on the assumption, perhaps incorrect, that this was a pattern with respect to multiple articles. However, the evidence here is only about one article over and over again. If there is a pattern of tendentious or otherwise disruptive claims of original research at multiple articles, a topic-ban might be in order. However, if the issue is only about one article, I would advise that it be treated as a content dispute, and addressing content issues often takes care of conduct issues. The final step on a content dispute should be a Request for Comments. User:DevilWearsBrioni has asked me, at my talk page, for help in composing a neutral RFC. If the issue is only about one article, can we close this thread as being handled by RFC? Alternatively, if anybody really really really thinks that it is necessary to deal with this as a conduct dispute, it appears that Albania is in the Balkan region, and that Arbitration Enforcement is a more expeditious way to deal with disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, a RfC couldn't deal with the problem I am reporting here. DevilWearsBrioni's OR/SYNTH accusations take place on at least two separate articles (Fustanella and Expulsion of Cham Albanians I have noticed so far) and in 3 different Noticeboards, in three different time periods (the one at June, the other at July, and the last at August), and against different users, and for different content each time. So, what you are saying about RfC, this cannot be handled as one single content dispute. It is obvious that if the case here was a mere single content dispute, we could have waited for a RfC instead. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question - What administrative action is the Original Poster, User:SilentResident, requesting? A topic-ban on claims of original research? That seems extreme for two disputes, especially since Wikipedia does have a policy against original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hm, I do not know exactly what silent resident is requesting, however that or a block seems necessarily as he seems to either have no or pretends to have no understanding of what OR is. Iazyges (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I am very reluctant to impose a topic-ban against claiming original research based on two articles. If the issue is persistent tagging of one or two articles after there is a consensus against the tags, then that may be a basis for topic-banning from the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I understand your reluctance, but a topic ban is not being asked without a valid reason and merely because of OR / SYNTH. It is not a mere OR problem here which could otherwise be treated as a content dispute. As you may have noticed, he has used the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in a disruptive way and this goes against Wikipedia's rules. -- SILENTRESIDENT 03:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Devil has also been forum shopping and refusing to abide by a DRN decision that he himself started. A topic ban might be necessary.74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

DevilWearsBrioni's failure to express the necessary minimal conduct as evidenced in the light of the recent incidents should be answered by least depriving/prohibiting him from the right to raise more OR/SYTH cases against the other users, or a topic ban on politically-sensitive articles. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) I want to point out that DWB has a history of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and filing frivolous reports on editors in good standing. January 2016: Massive and frivolous AN/I report against User:Alexikoua that was closed with no action. The in June 2016, he does the same exact thing! In these reports, he makes all kinds of heavy accusations against Alexikoua, who is a valuable user with 8 years experience and a whopping 170 articles created at the latest count [112], 14 of which are GAs or A-class. By contrast, DWB has been around for less than a year, with content building that is best described as "zilch" [113]. Naturally, both reports were dismissed as frivolous, with no action taken. This is harassment.. Instead of building content, DWB is targeting an editor that builds content. In addition, DWB seems to have an especial obsession with Expulsion of Cham Albanians, going from one forum to another to have his way. First he tried WP:NOR [114], when he didn't get his way there, he started a DRN [115]. Now as Iazyges points out, he is refusing to abide by the results of the DRN and wants it reopened [116]. While there is nothing wrong with seeking dispute resolution, what we have here is a user deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, who won't WP:DROPTHESTICK, and who is harassing veteran contributors by filing frivolous reports. As I see a clear case where we have a user that mostly creates drama instead of content, and is a constant source of disruption and strife at ARBMAC topics, I think a topic ban may be appropriate. That said, I think AE may be the best venue for handling this, instead of AN/I. The filer may consider moving their report there. Athenean (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In light of the suggestions by the editors, here, I have concluded that the WP:AE could be better for this, and therefore, I moved my report from the AN/I to AE. The report on the AE will be filled later (I hope within this day). My thanks to everyone for their time, support and advises. -- SILENTRESIDENT 04:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

ERHaxhiu

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

---

• ERHaxhiu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After I reported User:ERHaxhiu to ANI I was told by an admin (User:KrakatoaKatie) that He's off a one-month block, so it's time for some community discussion, with a reference to ANI, so I will start a discussion here.

The editor has a history of persistently not listening to other editors and keeps on making same edits over and over again, especially at Kosovo national football team. This despite consensus at article talkpage (for example Talk:Kosovo national football team#Edit war over flags for coaches for one of the issues), and discussions at his talkpage (User talk:ERHaxhiu#Kosovo national football team and User talk:ERHaxhiu#Kosovo national football team again).

After three recent blocks for 31 hours (16 June), 1 week (22 June) and 1 month (7 July) for the disruptive behaviour, he still made this edit today. In the edit he removed redlinks that are okay, he readded unofficial score in infobox, fake headers (using semicolon), changing to incorrect wikilinks to footballers and adding unsourced table of captains. All of this has been discussed and he has been informed about it on his talkpage.

User:Fenix down (an other admin) stated on 8 August that ERHaxhiu - this is the only warning you will receive. Do not under any circumstances revert the flags in this article without gaining consensus on the talk page to do so first. If you do this again, you will be blocked again, for at least three months] and although ERHaxhiu stopped changing the flags the disruption has continued. Qed237 (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• I asked Qed237 to come here because I think we're at the community ban level now. If I were to block him at AIV for another month or three months, I'm pretty sure we'll be here when that block expired. Qed237 does some yeoman work on these football articles and we need to give him a hand here. Katie^talk 19:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• An examination of their edits and interactions show that they are here for one purpose, to push a Kosovar nationalist POV in these articles. There's also the issue of sub optimal competence in the English language. I would not be opposed to a community ban if so propsed. Blackmane (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Seems to be a case of WP:CIR and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I'd be in support of a community ban if so proposed. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• The editor could easily be banned [blocked] indefinitely under WP:INDEF. Discussion about a WP:CBAN is really in regards to eliminating the possibility of this editor returning on something like standard offer without community consensus. I think it would be very unlikely for the usual lot working at WP:UNBLOCK to grant them any sort of offer without first addressing the issues under which they were originally blocked. As an alternative, the community could implement a topic ban and see where WP:ROPE takes us. Mkdw^talk 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Although an involved admin here, I'm not really sure what additional steps can be taken. The editor has been blocked repeatedly by multiple admins for the same thing. Whilst he has made a significant number of useful contributions, the narrow field of his involvement makes me wonder the use of a topic ban. I'm not sure whether we are quite at the indef stage yet. Threads like this show that he is willing to engage and that resolution and agreement can be reached. He certainly knows a lot about Kosovan football. Now we are at ANI, I am reluctant to propose a further block right now, because I don't want to drive him away. I would propose that, assuming he can engage in this discussion properly that this should be used as a final warning (prior to an indef /cban) with the instruction that he needs to:

1. acknowledge the issues raised here by multiple editors
2. drop the nationalist p.o.v. pushing
3. start referencing contributions fully
4. engage promptly with other editors who revert his contributions and not engage in edit wars.

Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I concur with Fenix down that ERHaxhiu has made some positive contributions in Kosovo football, which is an area in which few editors currently have good knowledge. If ERHaxhiu doesn't realize that being reported here is truly serious, then they deserve a WP:CBAN; there is certainly enough WP:ROPE, but I am also reluctant to activate the gallows just yet. This needs to serve as ERHaxhiu's final warning. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jkudlick: I doubt he takes it seriously since he made this comment to the ANI notification and has not choosen to respond here (at least not yet). But, I see your point. Qed237 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Having reviewed their contributions, I see that they continue to mark almost all edits as "minor" after I advised them to stop. I'm sorry to say that I agree the gallows must be activated. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• I've given them a final notice to engage here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• For User:Qed237, User:Fenix down, User:Jkudlick One of you said that I know more about football in Kosovo and this is true, I watch football from 2005 and all the edits you make in the wiki pages that are related to football in Kosovo and Albania are based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERHaxhiu (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ERHaxhiu: How about the concerns raised about your edits? Any comments on that? You would have to explain more about your behaviour and edits if you wish to remain unblocked. Qed237 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fenix down and NeilN: You have both requested comments from the editor. What do you say now? Qed237 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I'm from Kosovo and know the history of my country better than a foreigner, Kosovo until 1992 was under Yugoslavia and from 1992 to 1999 was part of the federation Serbia-Montenegro and from 1999 until February 17, 2008, tt has been a protectorate of the United Nations and from February 17, 2008 until now Kosovo is an independent and recognized by 109 countries at the United Nations and for those I have made editing in the rubric of trainers in Kosovo national football team's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERHaxhiu (talk • contribs)

@ERHaxhiu: Once again I would like you to respond to the concerns about your edit bahvaiour (and not how much you know about Kosovo football). Qed237 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: The cause worries is that some do not accept the reality of Kosovo — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERHaxhiu (talk • contribs)

Based on what are practically non-answers above, I have blocked ERHaxhiu indefinitely with a pointer to this discussion. Getting himself unblocked will be easier than getting himself unbanned but not as easy as getting a "regular" block lifted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:95.49.114.217

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked the IP. Materialscientist (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/95.49.114.217. Posting unwarranted warnings on my talk page, along with vandalizing other users' talk pages. 76.14.51.178 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean 95.49.114.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). clpo13_(talk) 22:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. 76.14.51.178 (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

They've now been blocked by an admin for disruptive editing. For future reference, you can report simple cases of vandalism like this to WP:AIV. clpo13_(talk) 22:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: Can you please revoke them of their talk page access? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The Teahouse

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

---

The thread in question is "does 'Ignore All Rules' apply to blocked users?". An IP who is probably a sock of a blocked editor is going on and on about how WP:IAR permits blocked editors to continue editing. Can administrators experienced with possible socks take a look? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Notified IP Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 06:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Kazaro

This user has been disrupting articles related to GMA Network. This includes adding non-factual, misleading and unsourced information to the articles (e.g. changing the picture format of GMA Network television programs to 1080p HDTV, adding GMA Films, APT Entertainment, OctoArts Films, M-Zet Productions, TAPE Inc., and Regal Films as affiliates/associates (subsidiary and division) of each other.) This user has also been deleting a portion of content on the Star Cinema article even though it has been properly cited.

These are just some of the proof of the user's persistent vandalism:

• [117]
• [118]
• [119]
• [120]
• [121]
• [122]
• [123]
• [124]
• [125]

Hollyckuhno (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User:176.24.32.210

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

• The aforementioned user is clearly a genre warrior. He or she has made several unreferenced genre changes on R&B and rap-related articles: [126], [127], [128], and [129]. Additionally, myself and Binksternet feel as if the user is a sock of either MariaJaydHicky or Chevyoncé, especially since the latter account has made very similar edits on the pages already mentioned. Something needs to be done to stop this vandalism. Carbrera (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: You are required to notify all parties of this discussion. You have not notified Binksternet of this discussion on their talk page so I have done so for you --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• If you think they are sock puppets and have enough evidence, why not take it to Sock Puppet Investigations or ask a Check User to take a look? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed MariaJaydHicky was obsessed about genre, especially with regard to the genre "Contemporary R&B". Here are two diffs, one from the IP from the UK (MariaJaydHicky is from the UK) and the next from a blocked sock.[130][131] Obvious stuff here; obvious to those familiar with the case. Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone not realised Carbrera is a sock of Gubitto uno? Their edits are the same 05:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.32.210 (talk)

@176.24.32.210: What are you even talking about? There's no user by that name registered on the English Wikipedia. Carbrera (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no user by the user name Gubitto uno on any wikimedia project (according to Central Auth). --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I should actually also note on my comment above a Check User Wouldn't confirm either way if it is a sock due to the Privacy Policy --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

But they could block the IP anyway`. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? GAB^gab 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

User:FelisLeo threatening me as a "vandal"

I made an edit to FC Goa. The page linked the manager Zico by his birth name and his footballing name. That is inappropriate and unnecessary. FelisLeo has called it "test editing" and even vandalism. He does not appear to be a regular editor to the page or an expert in the subject. He has not explained what I have gone wrong apart from obtuse labels like "vandalism" and has been giving me warnings. FC Goa Fan (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

How is that inappropriate, it is his actual name? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I left an explanation on FC Goa Fan's talk page [132].FelisLeo^Talk! 20:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not inappropriate, but pointless and a waste. On the page about the United States you would not put "The president is Barack Hussein Obama (Barack Obama)". Certainly putting it as just his common name is not vandalism by any stretch. The other user is edit warring, assuming ownership and not engaging in dialog FC Goa Fan (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The nickname should not be hyperlinked, IMO. It should be his real name hyperlinked, and then (Zico). Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those analogy's don't really work in this situation. It would be more akin to Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) which would make perfect sense. Why wouldn't this be okay? As far as I know and can tell it isn't wrong per our Manual of Style. Also this seems to be more of a content dispute. Regardless FelisLeo left you warnings on your page. The warnings automatically escalate and the wording changes (becomes more firm). The warnings seem appropriate to me however, you seem to be almost (but not yet) engaging in a Edit War. Also brining this to ANI before even giving the other user a chance to comment on the talk page is a jumping the gun a bit. He also didn't threaten you he warned you. There is a difference. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Judging by his explanation on your talk page, he wasn't reverting you because of the nickname. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Noël Coward#Needs an infobox?

This thread started over 2 years ago with multiple editors wondering if this FA should have an infobox (it currently does not). I sought agreement to have an RfC to resolve yes or no. The RfC proposal has been rejected by some editors who see no need to have an RfC for various reasons, and others agreed an RfC would be a good idea. Any help appreciated because the thread has reached a bad faith impasse with charges of WP:Disruptive editing and WP:OWN (among others). If this thing is too nuclear and should be dropped no problem, I'm not familiar with infobox/FA wars and this is the first time I got caught up in it. Any guidance or help appreciated. -- GreenC 17:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As an outside editor who has reviewed the comments, I believe that an RfC would be the best way to gain consensus. I'm not sure why everyone on that talk page is against it, it's a clear yes or no thing in my opinion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 17:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment The last post I see there was two days ago, so I can't see why this needs to be at AN/I with "disruptive" and "own" comments. The thread was begun more than 2 years ago. Don't see anyone's gotten far enough out of line with comments to need AN/I to "break it up"-especially when it's a 2+ year old thread with last post besides yours, 2 days prior. We hope (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• RfC is inherently a good-faith dispute resolution method to solicit wider community input in situations exactly such as this. You don't need the agreement of the other local editors, that's the point. The blatant ownership issues are concerning, but unless they cross over into actual editing, they're best dealt with by completely ignoring them. Those claims have no teeth and it is the community that has authority over Wikipedia articles, not any individual "author". If a writer of an article thinks this is unfair, they quite simply are involved with the wrong project. Swarm ♠ 18:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Just start the RFC. There's no logical reason for editors to oppose seeking wider consensus. clpo13_(talk) 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Started RfC @Green Cardamom: I have opened the RfC and closed the prior discussion so that formal comments and votes can be taken. I decided to be bold. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You're a brave man. I imagine there will be a lot of uncivil comments on that RFC if the closed infobox section is anything to go by. clpo13_(talk) 19:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I notified all the prior participants via their talk pages - hoping it can get hammered down and a resolution can be found! -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• What a stupid and pointless step. Talk about trying to encourage dramah! It's been fairly clear from the conversation that there is no consensus for inclusion, so to try and claim an RfC is needed to gain a consensus is a calumny. This smacks of a poor approach from an editor to try and get their own way, despite the consensus being against them. – SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Green Cardamom has offered to drop the stick if necessary and was seeking advice here. An RfC is a clearer, better way to get consensus on this matter since the prior discussion was aged and had numerous unrelated points and accusations to it. As an outside editor, I along with the other editors who commented above feel this step will provide a "final resolution" to this debate. In good faith, I notified all prior contributors so that no one could miss or be excluded from the RfC. I think this summary accusation on the intent of the editor is unnecessary and adding to the "drama". This was clearly a good faith attempt to resolve the debate. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone not getting their own way on nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT grounds and shopping around to force the issue elsewhere is not dropping the stick: it's passing the disruption baton to others. Yes, the old discussion was aged: the consensus was clear about two years ago, so re-opening it is disruptive. There is no good faith in GC's extension of a previously-settled matter, and you were I'll-advised in re-opening something that always ends up being contentious. Roll on the usual flash mobs, snark, insults and a couple of blocks. Well done to you and GC for stirring the IB shit-pot once again. – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Forum shopping, pure and simple. With millions of articles in desperate need of improvement, you choose this one to bastardise. Great work! Cassianto^Talk 20:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's hardly forum-shopping to open an RFC at the same venue as previous discussion. For some reason, you and SC don't want outside input for an issue that clearly needs some fresh blood. clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • What a surprise to see you here. The first of many dramah board mongerers, I envisage. Cassianto^Talk 21:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Clpo13, Please don't misrepresent what I do or don't want. An editor who isn't getting their own way on a piece of formatting a stable and highly-rated article decides to come to ANI (why ANI, if not for dramah mongering). One of the things I don't want (as you haven't bothered actually asking me previously) is yet another ill-mannered and tendentious discussion for of snark and ill-opinion where one just isn't needed. That will be the outcome of this, but for the peanut-gallery who do little else but skulk around here, tendentious nonsense seems to be the order of the day. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The only ill-mannered discussion regarding infoboxes I see comes from you and Cass. It's on full display at Talk:Noël Coward#Needs an infobox?. I particularly note that Cass can't seem to handle an opposing opinion without biting someone's head off or linking an inappropriate picture. clpo13_(talk) 21:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you either have little idea what you are talking about or are taking a cock-eyed view of this, given the ridiculous accusations by GC, among ee that the standard of peanut gallery is as misguided as always. Time to move on and do something useful, which is something many people on this page should probably try doing, rather than stirring the ever-festering dramah here. – SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What was inappropriate about the picture? Treating I'll-feeling with humour is often an appropriate course of action to take. Unless, of course, you are you and you treat everything with scepticism. Cassianto^Talk 22:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Mannerheimo and demographics articles

In the last week Mannerheimo has been revising articles about countries' demographics of ethnicity and religion by substituting reliable data, in many cases the most recent census data, with data from the CIA World Factbook which is not only outdated in many cases (even of 10 or 20 years ago), but frequently a collection of grossly imprecise estimates. I assume the good faith of user Mannerheimo, but he has been already adviced on his talk page and reverted by various users. I ask the administrators to watch over his edits.--151.36.25.60 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Notifying the involved editor. Also they seem to have misunderstood the comment that another editor had left on their page, perhaps they need it clarified. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If one cannot use the CIA World Factbook as an sourch I think these idea dosen't favour the idea of Wikipedia. I have discussed with User:Nillurcheier about these issue and the result was that User:Nillurcheier dosent't have enyting against the CIA World Factbook. Seems that here is not an clear cut with other users useing the World Factbook as sourch. --Mannerheimo (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not what Nillurcheier said at all. They said the CIA Factbook was a good, general source, but often outdated for certain statistics by as much as 10-20 years, and that we should use more up to date statistics when available:- "In general CIA World Factbook is an acceptable source. However they don't do original research but collect carefully data from all over the world. Hence, if we have and know primary sources, they should always be preferred. Some data is on date, religious data however are quite often outdated. E.g. the religious composition for Germany in the Factbook says 34% Catholic and 34% protestants. Well this is a figure that was true in 1995. today it's 29% and 28%. I hope, we can agree on the preference or primary sources such as censuses or surveys (e.g. by PEW)"[133]. Begoon ^talk 14:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes User:Nillurcheier said also about outdated facts but User:Nillurcheier used Germany for exemple. But Germany is not hole story.Some countries the information from Factbook is outdated and some are not.So giving one countries argument for all is not just fare. Every country is diffrent issue seperatly. That is an fact. I expect the concensus policy in Wikipedia but not all issues are concensus. Updating is not under concenus. --Mannerheimo (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mannerheimo, your English makes it difficult for me to figure out exactly what you're saying. Yes, all issues should be settled by way of consensus. "Updating" is one thing, but if you use outdated sources (as you did, apparently, in the example given above), then you are by definition not updating--you're downdating. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree about my English. But that dosen't make be an any worst Wikipedian than you or other. In English Wikipedia there are lot of non-english first language speaking users. The issue about outdating information is an issue but is not only My issue is the issue of All Wikipedians. I have not created the issue but I am only useing the information which I find from sourchies like Factbook which is made for public use. --Mannerheimo (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing there is not an world in English called downdating.--Mannerheimo (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright rapid fire address here; Simple way to deal with this issue, if there's a out-of-date reference attached to the article or if it is of dubious quality than consider replacing with the CIA Factbook, if the reference provided is recent and reliable (say 5 or so years) then don't replace it with the CIA Factbook. The term downdating that Drmies used is not meant to be an actual word, it's meant to convey an idea, it's comparable to upgrading and downgrading (both of which are words). Your English makes it difficult to follow you, that's not meant to be an insult, just a reality. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I will consider your idea. I have just done so. For updating Religious Demographics of Japan. The old information was from 2006 but the Factbook information was from 2012 . So which is older 2012 or 2006? I think the right answer is 2006. Link to the Factbook [134]. --Mannerheimo (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have doubts about the ability of Mannerheimo to distinguish a good source from a bad one. He seems to assume that data from the CIA Factbook is always good because it is produced by that agency, but actually it is not good data. In many cases the data collected by the CIA Factbook is outdated but the date of publication is not, and they never make reference to their sources. Based on what I have observed over the last few years their data tends to be very inaccurate, "guesstimated" in many cases. The same can be said about the Pew Research publications of 2010. Iryna Harpy could help explaining the problems of these sources. Mannerheimo could use CIA data where no other surveys are available. I personally would prefer to keep CIA and Pew data completely out of Wikipedia. --151.34.254.220 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he continues to delete census data. He should be stopped immediately. He has already damaged a lot of articles. I have been able to revert just the major ones.--151.34.254.220 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I stop useing the CIA World Factbook. I don't want to make an editing war about these issue. Anonomous users versus registrated users is very odd arguement. But Just I want so say this. If two users Mr rnddude and User:Nillurcheier agree with Me that the Factbook is an good sourch of information but it seems that not all a agree with it. I think also that Pew Research data or any data outside from Wikipedia is suitable data. My edits about Demographics of Continents useing the Factbook was an waste of editing. I will continue editing some thing else because my editing about Demographics of Countries with the sourch of Factbook is not just ok for some over active anonomous users. Thank you for these discussion. I will end it here. --Mannerheimo (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, IP 151.34.254.220. I've been reverting Mannerheimo's charts/graphs as good faith as I certainly understand them to genuinely have been done in good faith. Judging by his/her last comment, I'm hoping Mannerheimo has understood this, so I'm just going to clean up the remaining additions. As individuals, all editors have personal understandings as to RS. My personal opinion - based on multiple discussions on related articles - is that the World Factbook can be a useful resource in the right context, but should not be used as an alternative to census figures when it comes to statistics for ethnic group articles, nor should it a substitute for good research when it comes to articles on religion in countries/nation-states. Where census figures are dated, or where there has been consensus that the census figures aren't adequate due to the nature of the data gleaned, the preferred alternatives are polls undertaken by reputable statistical research centres. Even there, PEW and other such institutions use small sample groups and don't provide any detailed information as to the selection process, questions asked, etc. Supplementary data can also be found using other RS. There tends to be far more nuance in ethnic group articles than the Factbook accommodates. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource, not a duplication of figures that are predominantly not cited. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for User:Iryna Harpy to comment here about the issue considering the Factbook. Well I don't agree with all your arguments about the Factbook. Factbook is easy and real help full sourch for quick information. Finding information from the Factbook is much much easy than from official government statistics. --Mannerheimo (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That may be so, Mannerheimo, but contributing to an encyclopaedic resource isn't about the easy options: it's about research and finding the best sources, and about finding the best methodology by which to use them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Long term vandalism and edit warring to Disney theme park articles

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

---

NeilN banning an IP

NeilN enabling a rangeblock.

The most recent incarnation of block evasion may be seen here [135], but the persistence is such that I'm requesting protection of the multiple articles involved, and find it easier and more appropriate to come here, than to clog the protection noticeboard with all the pages involved. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

2602:306:bcae:b570::/64 blocked 2 weeks. I believe that covers all the IPs. If they come back, please report to AIV or let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, NeilN; the block notice states 'two days'. And yes, I'll report again. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the current IP for two days. Then I went back, figured out a range, and did a rangeblock for two weeks. Example. This will supersede individual IP blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake--thank you! Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's confusing if you don't know how rangeblocks show up in the log (and probably most editors don't). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Kosovo

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

---

BobNesh deleted Kosovo from the articleList of European countries by average wage writing that isn't a state.Please block him.Ambidibody (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo is a disputed and partially recognized state (I think partially is more like majority), and it seems like a content dispute. Unless you can show that they are edit-warring or in violation of 3RR, nothing should be done. Taking a cursory glance at the article, that only one revert has taken place. Seems like it needs a close with No Action and an explanation of what AN/I is for delivered to the OP. Oh, and your edit summary (BOBNESH Vandalism) is inappropriate, and an assumption of bad faith, that's actionable if anybody wants to pursue it. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Kosovo vandalized

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

---

BobnNesh vandalized again Kosovo in the article List of sovereign states in Europe by minimum wage.He deleted all the Kosovo data and the references writing that Kosovo isn't a sovereign state.See Kosovo.Ambidibody (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, that's discussion number two that has been opened. BobNesh, I'm pinging you as a courtesy not to template you pointlessly again. Now, I'm going to repeat myself here, but, Kosovo isn't a fully recognized sovereign state. As such these disputes will arise as some will see it as inappropriate to include nations (that do not officially exist according to some other nations) while others will see it as inappropriate to exclude them. So I recommend that you take this discussion to a talk page (preferably the article's in question) and start a discussion. As a warning, stop presuming the bad faith of other editors Ambidibody, unless you can demonstrate intentional vandalism your report is a violation of WP:AGF. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

BruceGrubb editing in violation of topic ban

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

---

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

User:BruceGrubb is banned from editing Christianity-related articles [136] and articles about fringe theories [137]. BruceGrubb edited J. M. Robertson: [138]. Robertson was a proponent of the Christ Myth Theory, which is a fringe theory about Christianity. Bruce has recently been blocked for violating his topic ban, and has been blocked many times before for it. At this point, I don't understand why he's allowed to edit at all, but he should at least be blocked at this point. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. 9 previous blocks, several IPs blocked for sock puppetry, and a topic ban is more than enough WP:ROPE. Mkdw^talk 17:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC) (NOTE:Unarchived to allow further discussion)

[edit conflict with Mkdw] EdJohnston asked me to come here, since I issued Bruce's most recent block. He made three edits to Robertson's article, of which the most recent is linked. Is that the sole substance of the complaint? He didn't do anything beyond reorganising the selected works section and improving the bibliographic data for those works. Unless I'm missing something significant, this is nothing but simple maintenance, not something warranting sanctions at all; it doesn't seem a ban violation in my eyes. If it is a violation, in this situation the ban is a rule that prevents Bruce from maintaining Wikipedia, so it should be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TOPICBAN is a complete prohibition against an editor from editing articles related to a specific subject. The community consensus when enacting the topic ban did not provide special provisions to allow the editor to edit Christianity related articles for the purposes of maintenance and upkeep. Allowing the editor to do so, would in my opinion, exceeds our discretion as administrators when such a clear restriction is put in place by the community. Nyttend, if you want to allow BruceGrubb to edit Christianity related articles with the provision it is only done so for maintenance and upkeep purposes, then I believe you will need to seek a community consensus to have the conditions of their topic ban adjusted. Mkdw^talk 17:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The non-Christianity sections don't make this a Christianity-related article, any more than the non-weather sections of New York are covered by a topic ban from weather. More importantly, IAR specifically permits obvious improvements; I will not enforce a community ban in the face of what is our most basic policy. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The key part of topicban in a situation like this (as you point out) is the example "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;" Is the article J. M. Robertson substantially about either fringe topics or christianity? I would say it arguably is, based on the (undue though I feel it is) content contained there. However that aside, the ref works (that have been reordered) do contain obvious christianity related content. While it may be a simple maintenence edit, it is a maintenence edit of material he is topic banned from. I think an indef block is overly strict in this situation, but he should know by now there is a difference between editing a substantial article that contains a small part of material he is banned from, and editing an article that contains a large section. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The changes literally included the word "Jesus" twice and "Christianity" once in the works section. The subject is the author of books (as listed in the works section) such as "Christianity and mythology" and "A Short History of Christianity" and you're suggesting this isn't a Christianity-related article? I am inclined to strongly disagree with your assessment. In regards to whether maintenance related tasks are the exception to topic ban, I see nothing to support that position. There is a time and place for WP:IAR but not to allow something directly in opposition to conditions put in place by community consensus. I think you are also narrowly reviewing these edits in their isolation. BruceGrubb did not inquire or petition the community to clarify or change the conditions of their topic ban to allow them to perform maintenance related tasks. They performed these edits as a willful decision to edit against their topic ban. This editor has repeatedly challenged their topic ban and has shown a pattern of purposely violating our rules, including sock puppetry, as evident in their nine previous blocks. Mkdw^talk 18:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I see a clear violation of the ban from editing Christianity-related articles, but I question whether Christ myth theory (related: Historicity of Jesus and Richard Carrier) meets Wikipedia's criteria for being a fringe theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That has no bearing on the ban violation question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• This is a clear violation of the topic ban. It's correct that, for articles tangentially related to Christianity, the topic ban would only apply to those portions of the article regarding Christianity. The edit in question [139] edited directly portions of the article about works entitled "A Short History of Christianity", "Pagan Christs", "The Historical Jesus, a Survey of Positions", and "The Jesus Problem; a restatement of the myth theory". Those clearly violate the Christianity topic ban. It doesn't matter if it was "just maintenance"—a topic ban means your editing in that area has been found disruptive enough that you are barred from editing things related to it altogether. At that point, the quality or desirability of the edits no longer matters. If you're editing in the area again after a topic ban, in any way and for any reason (except these, which don't apply here), you're violating the topic ban and subject to sanction for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So It looks like the user has been blocked indefinitely and everyone agrees they were in violation of the topic ban can this be closed now? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Anthony J. Tata article

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

---

Can an admin please check on this article Anthony J. Tata? It is for a living person and appears to be repeatedly vandalized. Thank you for looking into it. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That he had a child out of wedlock with a woman, while still married, is the result of a military inquiry, it isn't speculation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why this is at ANI...this should have been a request for page protection if anything. The "vandalism" seems to be more of a content dispute than anything in my opinion and was a new editor placing comments in the wrong forum. -- Dane2007 ^talk 17:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody would protect a page against one non-socking user. The user could have been blocked, but their last edit is not vandalism, it is at most BLP violation, and likely not even that.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the page wouldn't be protected but thats where I think this "request" should be vs. at ANI. -- Dane2007 ^talk 17:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Cassianto purging infoboxes and the information they contain and telling people to "fuck off"

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

---

User:Cassianto has been removing infoboxes from articles created by User:Tixienixie citing the essay WP:DISINFOBOX. When I reinstated them, to preserve the information contained in them, I was told to fuck off. Cassianto's edit summaries consist of "reverting vandalism", which this is not an example of. Information contained within the infoboxes that does not appear in the articles is lost, such as the age at death and marriage information. See [140] [141] calling me a vandal [142] [143]. Here is his contribution history. Now that he has reached 3RR a tag team has appeared, that have not made contibutions to the articles. The team is reinstating his deletions.

• You can read his lengthy philosophical opposition to infoboxes at Talk:Noël Coward where he states "It's a sheer fucking travesty that this article is now about to be bastardised by the 'public' who have had no prior involvement in its authoring", yet he removes Tixienixie infoboxes without "prior involvement".
• He also writes "Quit your bullshit snark and talk about the fucking infobox on this article."
• He also writes: it's fucking disruptive, that's what it is; especially seeing as you haven't even bothered to post a comment.
• He also writes why don't you fuck off
• He also writes take your tags and fuck off
• fuck off to another editor

Sanctions are needed, and not a slap on the wrist, we should never tolerate this behaviour by him or his enablers and apologists. Bullies are for Junior High School not Wikipedia.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

FFS-this is a difference over infoboxes-ever heard of not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? We hope (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• So what? He holds a difference of opinion with you about the frequency that IBs should be used: big deal. You, however, have still failed to provide the necessary evidence to support your accusation of tag teaming. It's a tendentious accusation and you should face a BOOMERANG for unfounded and untrue accusations. – SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Here on Fred Allandale, the edit summary says "no valid reason for adding either" despite the fact that the infobox was there from the very first revision. Shouldn't the opinion of the original creator of an article be taken into account when determining if an infobox is to be used? clpo13_(talk) 16:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• (EC) Three things - 1. Given that said infoboxs contained only basic information that either was already/or could have been covered in one or two lines in the lead. DISINFOBOX was entirely appropriate. 2. Cassianto has previous had perfectly cordial discussion with said editor 3. You followed Cassianto to those articles and promptly engaged him in an edit war then templated him without attempting to either engage him in discussion or discuss it on the talkpages. In context 'fuck off' is a fairly tame response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OID, that talk page link is four years old and doesn't say anything about infoboxes. clpo13_(talk) 16:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So it is. I misread 2012 for 2016 :D Amended comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I continue to refuse to take a side in the infobox wars, but two points of disagreement with the report, and a question:

1. It is not true that "When I reinstated them, to preserve the information contained in them, I was told to fuck off"; RAN was told to fuck off because of his gratuitous 3RR warning on C's talk page.
2. When someone who is edit warring slaps a templated 3RR warning on the other person's talk page, about 90% of the time the person issuing the warning should be blocked for edit warring and gamesmanship. I'll leave it for other admins to determine if this case is the exception to the rule or not. And whether it should be both or not.
3. What's the current state of play in the infobox arbcom case(s)? Are discretionary sanctions available? In lieu of edit warring blocks, can I just topic ban both of them from ever adding or removing an infobox in an article they didn't create ever again? It would be a favor to both; they both have more useful contributions (and appear to be much happier) when not engaging in this idiocy.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, in answer to point 3, no, there are no DS in operation around IBs (although it's been mooted at ArbCom recently, there has been little appetite from the Arbs for enacting, although that could change). - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Shame on your for justifying an editor to tell another editor to "fuck off". There is never an excuse to engage in that behaviour at Wikipedia, and you should not become his enabler by rationalizing it. A 3RR warning is part of the ANI process. Once the warning was issued he stopped temporarily, and his surrogates stepped in removing the infoboxes. Removals from articles they had never edited before. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• That is the second time you have made an accusation about tag teaming. It has, again, been without any evidence of wrongdoing or of the notification of those you are accusing. Either strike the tendentious accusations, provide evidence, or face a boomerang. – SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And shame on you for engaging in a series of knee-jerk revisions this morning without looking into each edit you made. Not only did you edit war, your attempted justification for HOUNDING ("I am obliged to check your past edits to see how far back the behavior goes, and correct them") was inexcusable. I suggest a BOOMERANG for the OP, given their behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out above User:Cassianto has been removing infoboxes from articles created by User:Tixienixie, about 10 that I found, which I have to assume you are against because it constitutes "HOUNDING" of User:Tixienixie. I suggest a DOUBLE SECRET BOOMERANG, given your own behaviour. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the video was not uploaded to You Tube by the copyright holder. Would an admin remove the link so I'm not tampering with someone's comments. We hope (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do not presume to think that you know what my thoughts are. The misrepresentation is untrue and uncivil. (Double secret boomerang? Grow up, for crying out loud) – SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I am in complete agreement with (1) and (2); as for (3) I believe that it was individual editors that were sanctioned in the infoboxes case; I might be wrong, but I don't believe there are discretionary sanctions available. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I restored Fred Allandale to the pre-war (which means, with infobox) version and protected it for a week. I have at this point no position on whether an infobox is needed there, on whether infoboxes are needed in other affected articles, and on whether the behavior of Cassianto or any other involved users is blockable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAN has recently been embroiled in other content disputes around infoboxes - the one at AN is moaning about how an editor was not using RAN's preferred parameter. It seems RAN's MO is to get into dispute over trivial issue then escalate to noticeboard. Cassianto's edits in this case appear justified, the infobox adds absolutely nothing that could not be expressed in the prose in a couple of lines. Penalising both parties when one clearly has issues with infoboxs appears overly harsh. Either way, this is another example of RAN escalating content disputes. In his post above when another editor has also reverted him (Sagaciousphil) his first response is not 'I should take his advice and go to the talk page' - his response is to accuse him of tag-teaming. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment Amazing that the complainant believes the sky is falling because of the removal of some infoboxes and that Cassianto is the ruination of Wikipedia, as his own house is far from in order. We hope (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, and stick to the issue at hand. We are all familiar with the poisoning the well technique in debates. It is not tolerated at Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

More ancient history. The infobox ArbCom case determined that infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited, so removing them while citing an essay (not a policy or guideline) is certainly disruptive. Both parties are guilty of edit warring and should have heeded WP:INFOBOXUSE's statement that the use of an infobox is determined by consensus. clpo13_(talk) 16:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"removing ...IBs while citing an essay (not a policy or guideline) is certainly disruptive": what utter tosh. a decent proportion of the edits undertaken on WP are done on the basis of essays because there is flexibility in the policies and guidelines. If we only ever operated to policy and guideline there wouldn't be much of an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The encyclopedia operates on consensus, which essays do not represent. clpo13_(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it operates on people taking bold edits on developing articles, rather that sniping on dramah boards. Where there is an objection to a bold edit, that's the point where there needs to be a decision on the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Since when is CCI ancient history? Many engaged in this work would be surprised to learn that active cases don't matter. We hope (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The cleanup may still be ongoing, but can you point out any copyright issues more recent than 2011? clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is time would be better spent trying to help clean up than by running to AN/I over infoboxes. We hope (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Something similar could be said of Cass, who recently lamented his lack of time to work on content due to the apparently more important work of arguing about infoboxes. clpo13_(talk) 17:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see his name on that list. We hope (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice of you to change "the same' to "Something similar" without striking it. We hope (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else would have grasped my original meaning. clpo13_(talk) 17:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And anyone else probably would have chosen words without possible inference. We hope (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I am wondering why this action, which took place nine hours ago, has just been reported, way after any alleged 'disruption' ended, despite the OP having been editing periodically throughout the day. It all seems a little odd. I'll also add that if the OP is going to make accusations of tag teaming, he needs to provide evidence of wrongdoing and alert those he accuses on their talk pages; failing that, the accusation is baseless and should be struck. – SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I find the accusation of tag teaming more than distasteful; I do sometimes check Cass's edits and the other day my attention had been drawn to an article he was working on, Harry Nicholls, as I knew one of the theatre history books I have in my possession had some [minor] detail about him. In turn that actually led me to look at contributions of another editor and the articles they were creating as they predominantly all had only one reference. After I searched the BNA for sources for Fred Allandale I noticed the dispute taking place. Incidentally perhaps it might be worth a check user looking at the IP who appeared out of the blue to add IBs back? SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), you have twice made accusations of tag teaming, that is that Cassianto contacted others to act on his behalf. You have done it without providing any evidence; despite me asking for such evidence you repeated the accusation. You need to provide evidence of wrongdoing and alert those you accuse on their talk pages; failing that, the accusation is baseless and should be struck. If you do not take either of those steps you should face action for making unfounded accusations. – SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I note that RAN has been active since I posted this, and has so far not provided any evidence for some of his accusations. I leave it to an uninvolved admin to draw their conclusions from his lack of evidence and to take the appropriate steps. – SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment I do not find anything unreasonable here with User:Cassianto telling User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to fuck off. Nor do I see an issue with the other comments. It looks (whether it is or not) as if Richard was tring to get a hand up in this edit dispute with the 3rr warning. [144] Here some math, it only takes two to edit war and it only takes one to initiate some form of dispute resolution (such as seeking a third opinion of an uninvolved party or opening an RFC). One of you feels the infobox should go [145] and the other feels it should stay [146]. You both have a case. You both I assume know the means of achieving a consensus. You both should have no problem living with the consensus once it's determined.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There's some extraneous drama here that I can't begin to get involved with, but this edit by Cassianto (talk · contribs) is a prime example of a bold edit which, having been reverted, should have been discussed on the talk page and not simply reinstated. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• This revert was also bad edit warring. Cassianto had reverted someone else's bold edit, so why RAN decided to edit war rather than use the talk page is a mystery. – SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Two accounts by one advertising 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.

---

• Schluesselmax (talk · contribs · email)
• Schlüsselmax (talk · contribs · email)

Both accounts were obviously created by the same user as both advertise the same company of the same name: Schlüsselmax, Schluesselmax. See also the corresponding case at de:wp where both accounts were blocked. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: I think you will get a faster response reporting problematic usernames to WP:UAA. shoy (reactions) 18:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That's good general advice, shoy. But since I noticed this report here, I've hardblocked both accounts ("promotional username with promotional edits"). They both had the same promotional userpage (now deleted), too. Thank you for reporting, AFBorchert. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for the pointer to WP:UAA and for blocking the two accounts. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

copy vios

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

---

Ruthless-paki (talk · contribs) has been warned three times regarding copyright infringement on articles that are not their own words and also had several images removed and still keeps adding copyrighted text to articles despite saying they would use their own words. Here are some of the blatant ones I removed if you check the sources and compare but I suspect there are SO much more. [147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158] 80.235.147.186 (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There's already a request for a CCI case to be filed, and none of the diffs you present occurred after my most recent warning, which was on July 29. If you wish to start the copy vio clean-up, that would be a big help. — Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: There are at least two that happened after your warning that I posted [159][160]. I added five more recent ones to the CCI but you should really check their contributions before and after your warning as it was ignored and there are so many more ones that I haven't reverted and would take so much time to do so. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In both of those instances, your removal of the content took place after the warning of July 29. On the Lucas Brown article, he added the copy vio on July 28, the day before my final warning, and on the Gilberto Ramirez article, I checked his six edits of August 6 to 15, and none of them contain copyright violations. None of his edits have appeared on the bot report since that date. While I did perform some spot checks on his recent contribs, I did not examine in detail each of his over 175 edits since I issued that warning, because the bot is doing a good job of catching the vast majority of copyvio additions. The editor appears to have stopped adding copy vio content, and will not be blocked unless he resumes. Please realize that this is just one of thousands of copy vio cases, and many of them will never get cleaned up, because there's a very small number of people working in this field. My own focus right now is on cleaning up the edits on the copyvio report and educating people: many do not realize that (unlike sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn) we do not accept copyright content. — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have found an example from your diffs at CCI of a copy vio added to Jarrell Miller after my warning, so I have gone ahead and blocked the user. — Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Blanking on film infoboxes

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

---

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

---

I'm having some trouble with an IP editor, 2606:A000:6380:600:223:12FF:FE20:E571 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who blanks content in film article infoboxes, mostly distributors or production companies. To reduce clutter in the infobox, this data is often implicitly cited to the film itself as a primary source. Some content is also copied from the external links without an inline citation, which is admittedly a bit lazy. Regardless of lazy sourcing, I think it's still disruptive to blank content from infoboxes. Although merely a trivial form of disruption, the IP editor also strips out the proper formatting: {{infobox film}} instructs us to use {{plainlist}} to separate list items. I have given the editor several warnings about blanking, and other editors have also reverted the edits as disruptive.

Examples:

• diff from A Monster Calls (film): blanks multiple production companies and distributors
• diff from Only Lovers Left Alive: blanks a distributor
• diff from Lion (2016 film): strips out proper formatting, blanks a distributor
• diff from Hidden Figures: strips out proper formatting, blanks a production company
• diff from Loving (2016 film): strips out proper formatting, blanks a distributor
• diff from Complete Unknown: strips out proper formatting, blanks a distributor
• diff from The Great Wall (film): extensive blanking of content from the infobox, including sources

There's more where that came from if you look at the IP editor's contributions; this is just a sampling. If you've got the range contribs gadget enabled, you can see there are similar edits on 2606:A000:6380:600::/64, but the majority of edits are from the one IP address above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked 60 hours for disruption. If I need to block the /64 later, ping me. Katie^talk 22:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• @KrakatoaKatie: The user is at it again as 2606:a000:6380:600:2547:8c8d:48ce:2d9a (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I would probably range block the /64. Also, 24.74.120.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making similar edits. For example, [161] and [162] in Ain't Them Bodies Saints, and [163] and [164] in The Bourne Ultimatum (film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Got 'em. The IPv6 is blocked two weeks, 'cause I'm kinda tired of this guy and I'm sure you are too. The 24.74.x.x is blocked 72 hours. That's a dynamic IP but he's had it for a while. Katie^talk 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent recreation of speedy deleted article and 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.

---

Over the past 48 hours, more or less, Hasnathalahi (talk · contribs · count) has created four articles about chess player Hasnath Alahi Chowdhury under the titles Hasnath Alahi Chowdhury (deletion log) and Chowdhury Hasnath Alahi (deletion log). The first three articles were speedy deleted under criteria A7, and the fourth attempt is currently tagged the same, as the subject has no credible claim of significance. Additionally, the username suggests that the user is the subject, creating a conflict of interest issue. The user appears to be a single-purpose account devoted to creating an article for this subject. The only exceptions in the edit history are to create "Category:Fide template with no ID set", which was deleted, and a test edit and a partial revert of test edit at Ziaur Rahman (chess player). I previously reported this user to WP:AIV via Twinkle (diff) shortly after the user created the third attempt. It appears to me that the user will not give up recreating this article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this report, TenTonParasol. I've salted both versions of the name against recreation and warned the user. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC).

User:Hasnathalahi has created the article at the talk page. I've tagged it for speedy deletion under G8 and, again, A7. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Account problem

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

---

I was in the process of performing an edit when I was mysteriously logged out of my account. Now I cannot log back in again. All I get is a message about 'session hijacking'. What gives and how do I get back into my account? (My account is Elektrik Fanne). 81.156.119.119 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not alone!! :( — RainFall 12:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

On trying again, the error message has now changed to "No active login attempt is in progress for your session". A meaningless error message. 81.156.119.119 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Finally got logged in, ANI is not the right place for this btw... — RainFall 12:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Same her. Obviously a glitch. So where is the right place? --Elektrik Fanne 12:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh good, I had the same problem repeatedly, I kept logging in and being thrown back out within about a minute. I thought it my problem alone. Elektrik Fanne, I would presume WP:Village Pump (technical) as this is a technical issue for which administrators are as unequipped as the rest of us to fix. Admins do have admin tools but are subject to the whims of Wiki bugs and the so forth as much as anybody else. I can't think of an official noticeboard for these sorts of things tbh, but, I would think there is one. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

VPT is the perfect place for it; at least I know I'm not the only one now having issues getting edits to stick (the server is throwing out SQL errors like a shot putter in Rio). Nate • (chatter) 12:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• I don't understand the last comment. Since when do shot-putters throw out SQL errors? EEng 13:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutronium in Fiction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Good puns, and problem solved --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

---

There have been additions to the "In Fiction" section of the Neutronium article about a fictional material which is unrelated to neutronium. For context, the material in question is "element zero" of the Mass Effect universe, an non-chemical substance that emits a dark energy field. I tried to remove it as it was unsourced and demonstrably false (the material in question's only implied connection to neutronium is its name, which one of the game's writers has shown to be an in-universe colloquialism, and its described properties are vastly different to neutronium). User:Headbomb has reverted all of my edits, however, and I would rather not get into an edit war.

Some closure on this issue would be appreciated.

JohannSnow (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, unless you are looking to have another editor sanctioned, you are in the wrong place. You should try dispute resolution. If there are just two of you in the kerfuffle, WP:3O is probably your best bet. If you are looking for sanctions, specific evidence (generally DIFFs) are needed. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• Maybe consider taking this to the Neutronium Point of View Noticeboard. EEng 07:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Does this actually exist, or are you making a joke? Mr rnddude (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• You have to be extremely dense to go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Good one! EEng 16:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

BLP violations by Alexandraprice29

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

---

On 26 July, Alexandraprice29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 1 week for violating BLP by changing the dates of birth on the articles of child actors, namely Jillian Ward (example), Goo Seung-hyun (example) and Mona Louise Rey (example), without providing reliable sources. On 15 August, they repeated these edits (diff, diff, diff), and I gave them a level 4im warning. Today, they repeated the edits again on the same articles (diff, diff, diff) and on Ekaterina Starshova (diff). Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 07:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Addition of unsourced content to a BLP

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

---

Need attention to articles like Dario Hernan Drudi. An IP keeps on making unsourced edits to BLP and just removes warnings at their talkpage. Admin attention needed. Qed237 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear I wont be editing the articles more and it is not my intention to war, but I take unsourced content to BLPs seriously and the IP has now taken the job to revert my every edit. Qed237 (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Also I brought it to AIV earlier (no action yet and not clear vandalsim apparently). Qed237 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Ukr. club FC Zirka Kropyvnytskyi has a new coach, Dario Hernan Drudi, the official site announced today. User Qed237 removed the absolutely correct information many times (not only in this article). Related discussion about him: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Ukrainian articles. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You can not repeatedly add unsourced content to a BLP. Why wont you just add a source? Qed237 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You cannot remove the correct information all time. Reverting new information without even checking whether it is true is verging on disruptive behaviour. Try to use {{cn}} instead. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Information is not correct unless there's a reliable source for it. Saying that, Google News seems to have lots of references so it shouldn't be a problem for EITHER of you, or anyone else, to add one. It seems to me this dispute has been handled at WT:FOOTY. All it now needs is for someone to add that reference, not more admin attention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is about infobox updates. For example, see [165] the numbers of players in the infoboxes have no any sources (official club webpages used as source by default if I correct). And, note, in the edits like this [166] (his revert of my updates), user Qed237 replaced the new correct "unsourced" information by old incorrect "unsourced" information! 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

We've established that, but you don't help your cause by undoing edits and not mentioning your sources the first time around.[167][168] Now it's time to calm down, step away from the horse, and look to closure. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Suspicious article creations - All new accounts creating pages about Australian academics

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

---

Was looking through the New Pages feed and saw a bunch of new pages created by new accounts. All pages are about Australian academics, all of whom fail WP:PROF from what I can tell. All users have only edited on the pages they created. All pages created today. Below is at list:

Will continue to look for more articles/accounts. Will notify all users linked here momentarily. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And I thought it was just me. Some of them are better sourced than others.--Savonneux (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, some are better quality (in terms of Wiki standards) than others too. But the pattern seems rather ... suspicious. I went back to 0:00 UTC on the NewPagesFeed and this is all I found. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There's one—Glenn Martin-Mackay—which seems to be about a graduate student, and is definitely a prank of sorts. That's the only exception to the 'academics of dubious notability' rule, however, so far as I can see. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Glenn Martin-Mackay doesn't fit the pattern and I've just speedied it, it seems to be a joke. For the others, is there an editathon gone awry? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that one. Was just collecting ones that were about Australian academics and made by new accounts. Thanks for speedying it. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, looking at the creation dates, which span just over three weeks, coupled with the fact that all of these articles were created today, I'm not too sure about the editathon. EvergreenFir, I've taken the liberty of adding the creation date for Kazoo1975. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I added Kazoo when I saw my CSD in log. >.> I think it's the only account that's protested a speedy, I replied to them on the article talkpage--Savonneux (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A responsive/interactive new editor? That's a possible hook for asking (gently and with massive GF obviously) about the larger situation here. I suspect a class based on the timeline. DMacks (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not much of an editathon person, but isn't that the usual advice - people are asked to create an account in advance and then they all get together to do the actual editing? The articles are all women and mostly (all?) scientists - a common topic for outreach type events. I suspect an editathon or a class that hasn't been organized too well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I've found the reason, from Susan_Neuhaus I found a page and a catagory --> Wikibomb2016

“ The Women in STEM Wikibomb is a joint event between Microsoft South Australia and the Office for Women to increase the number of Wikipedia pages on Australian women who have contributed to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Held during National Science Week, the Women in STEM Wikibomb aims to raise the profile of women in STEM, increase women's contributions to Wikipedia and provide technical skills and experience to participants.

”

(Is editing wikipedia a technical skill? Can I put it on my resume? :O )--Savonneux (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Savonneux: Wonderful sleuthing! That fits the bill pretty well (all women scientists, all in Australia, all STEM). Happy to see that my suspicions were incorrect and that this appears to be good-faith editing. I'll post some welcomes on the user pages and add some comments about article creation and WP:PROF. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Made sure all editors had a welcome template, added a section after the ANI notice welcoming them and offering to answer questions, and added a Tea House Invite. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. Meanwhile, I'll gear up to CSD everything they've done and crush their spirits utterly. EEng 07:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A similar case was mentioned on a noticeboard in 2014, and the home page was Wikipedia:Meetup/Canberra/2014-08-14-Wikibomb. Possibly Wikibomb2016 was intended to be similar, that is, in the Wikipedia namespace. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EvergreenFir for the welcomes to them all. EEng's spirit-destruction festival aside, it would be great if there was a way to encourage editing drives like this to focus more on expanding existing articles, rather than creating new ones and risking the usual GNG issues. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've declined a couple of these speedies. Some of the others look notable, or at least sufficiently borderline to merit AfD, to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that I kept Barbara Jane Howlett, but it was 90% copyvio.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Kerry Raymond is an editor who might have some clues who is behind this, I believe they've worked in this area before. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in the Wikibomb in 2014, but know nothing of this 2016 one. But between the two, there have been at least a couple of other "wikibombs" (which seems to be have acquired the meaning here in Oz of an edit-a-thon to add more women to Wikipedia). Based on my experience with these events, they are always good faith and usually not a problem in terms of notability (although the citations might not be there initially to meet GNG). I don't think you need to speedily delete them - just prompt them to add the citations. Copyvio does tend to be an issue. Unfortunately in Australian university circles, bios from university websites are routinely copied for a range of purposes, which leads academics to (wrongly) assume that they can put this content onto Wikipedia too. When challenged, the usual response is "but the university doesn't mind" (which in my years working at Australian universities is entirely true, but nonetheless the university website is tagged as copyright usually in the footer of every page). Euryalus, the purpose of these events is to try to redress the imbalance in coverage of women on Wikipedia, so they are always going to create new articles rather than expand existing articles. When Wikimedia Australia becomes aware of such events, we try to get an experienced Wikipedian involved if we can, but it can often by very last minute or not at all depending on if/when we hear about them. In this case, I guess we didn't hear about it since I didn't see any call go out for volunteers to assist. Kerry (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Kerry Raymond: thanks for the ping - I think the Wikibombs are a great idea and I agree that anything that broadens coverage is worth encouraging. I suppose my point is there is space for work on article depth as well as breadth. Plenty of pre-existing articles on women, including of women academics, are still stubs and could do with concerted editing campaigns of their own. They'd also be more likely to survive the CSD attrition that follows new article editathons. But just an opinion, whatever works best in attracting new editors and addressing the gap in article coverage for prominent women. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WMAU wasnt aware of any events in South Australia, we will contact the group to help them in address the issues raised here and assist them in running successful such events in the future. As suggestion for editors here if come across these events suggest that you try contacting the local Affiliate or even post to project notice board for the country as this may help you resolve what is going on and also remind people of WP:BITE Gnangarra 09:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• If someone can find someone involved in the actual project (should we move Wikibomb2016 to Wikipedia space?) I'd suggest that the new editors consider moving the problematic pages to draftspace (I hate that AFD is kinda of the way to do it) and then otherwise encourage them otherwise. We don't want to discourage new editors but point out that the page the way it is currently written is not in line with what's appropriate so there is WP:AFC and other processes to help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've started a Requested Moves discussion to establish a consensus on what should be done with the page. Please see Talk:Wikibomb2016 for the discussion. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps tt wouldnt hurt to ask at the Australian noticeboard just in case an Australian editor other than Kerry might know something about what was going on? Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians notice board JarrahTree 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: (a) With all the talk about creating articles on women scientists, we should not be surprised if people actually go ahead and do so. (b) Just looking at the first two - both seem like they pass WP:PROF reasonably easily: Susan Wijffels has an h-index of about 38; Elizabeth Truswell is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. StAnselm (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: It's often worth looking on social media when you see something like this. I remember some months ago seeing a pile of articles very like this - for a second I wondered if I was dealing with sockpuppets but I quickly found references on Twitter to an editathon at an astronomy conference. But this illustrates why it's a good idea to do this kind of event properly and ask users to put a mention of it on their user pages. (One disappointing thing I've sometimes seen with constructive but very low-knowledge/confidence accounts is that the second they get any sense that they're not doing things perfectly right they abandon the account and switch to an IP or another account, so they can look like an obvious sock even if their behaviour isn't actually in bad faith. Hard to know what to do with those.) Blythwood (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - to further this discussion, I'm going to ping @Salamanda14:, who created the article on the Wikibomb event, @Janstrugnell:, who I believe may have been involved in organising it, and @Adam (Wiki Ed): who I know manages some editathons for Wikimedia.
  I have to say, a superficial examination suggests that this event did a terrible job of supporting and training the people at it! I see all the classic mistakes: pages on non-notable people, simple copying and pasting of faculty biographies, failure to keep articles short (why don't we have a guideline to keep Wikipedia articles created at an editathon to under six sentences?), listing literally every article the subject has ever published, obvious mistakes like uncapitalised names, articles posted to article space without being finished, not telling the editors involved to put on their profile that they're at an editathon project, not very experienced and might need some help. And - yes - speedying/prodding of articles on potentially notable people rather than trying to fix them or asking the author if they can. This is exactly the kind of failure to support new editors that leaves people who might be very helpful contributors running away screaming and builds unhelpful stereotypes like this. Blythwood (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is this is the WikiBomb being conducted by a group looking to raise the profile of female arctic scientists, which I heard about on a podcast earlier this week? Guy (Help!) 18:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Folks, there are already guidelines at Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon, although I would comment they are highly idealised - e.g. one experienced Wikipedian per newbie! (where do you find so many volunteers?!). But these events are not usually organised by experienced Wikipedians and it doesn't occur to them to involve any experienced wikipedians and hence they will not know of any such guidelines. And why should they think differently? It clearly says on our main page "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; there's no suggestion that you might want your hand held in the process, that there's a MoS, or policies etc on our main page. These people are doing what they believe Wikipedia welcomes them to do: hop in and add content. It might be more useful to have a set of guidelines for the community to follow if they suspect such an event is taking place, so the reaction is efficient and effective, e.g. where to notify that such an event appears to be taking place (such as the listi on the how-to-run page). Perhaps we could have a template {{currentevent}}, e.g. that is added to the articles suspected of being part of a cwhurrent event of this nature (dated obviously), again to alert the community as to what they are dealing with. The discussion above shows that a number of people duplicated effort in detecting the event, wasted time checking for sockpuppeting, that people responded in different ways to the content being created, that relevant projects were not notified etc. Let's think in terms of how to respond to events in ways that is efficient for the community and mindful of WP:NOBITE. Kerry (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree in principle, but I'm at a loss for a practical solution. TimothyJosephWood 22:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

People (us?) have figured out how to make articles and what have you without having our hands held. When you let your newly formed articles run free in the wild some of them are going to get eaten. This is the natural process. Finding solutions to non problems is one of the things you list as a problem.--Savonneux (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• As I see it, what matters most is that almost all these people are clearly notable (there was one article on a grad student, which is the one that is deleted, but that would have been someone not doing things right. ) This is considerably better results than some such editathons. But most of them are mostly not aware of WP:PROF.c ( talk ) 00:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone - I was involved in starting the wikibomb - all the people who have created pages on women in STEM were volunteers and many may have been new users. They were created in good faith and as you can imagine it is hard to get through to a large group the importance of appropriate citing and creating correct articles even though I had asked them all to undertake the relevant tutorials and provided them with instructions from Wikimedia. I have not had time to check through the articles created but will do so over the next few days salamanda14

• @Salamanda14: - Can you post the list of contributors and the pages they created? Also, I think that people were discussing moving the Wikibomb2016 article to a Wikipedia project page like this one so the details of it can be logged properly in future. Blythwood (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some of these appear to be quite simple articles, but that is an argument to tag them for improvement, not to delete them. As others have noted, perhaps we need to provide better guidance for 1) new editors and 2) people interested in running Wikibombs and Editathons with new potential contributors. We also need to learn to be more civil and Assume Good Faith. It can be surprisingly difficult to demonstrate wikinotability of scientists compared to how easy it is for sportspeople and politicians. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • First, I suggest create templates like Template:Punjab editathon 2016 and tag the talk pages as a temporary measure so we know which are new pages created with a little purpose behind them. When thing is done, listify the pages and delete the tag (relevant CSD discussion here). I think the best way to handle these is for the problematic ones (if they are) to be tagged on the talk page for a possible move to draftspace. It does not affect the front side, it allows for some time (a week is not CSD) and it's not as nasty as having a AFD blasted on the page. We have yet to build a single real guideline that admits that we do have a middle ground here. For projects, I'd suggest they start as drafts and move to main as the suggested method (the experienced person or the leader take the reins) and tell them quite simply "look, you are a new editor here, people make drafts all the time, use this to both learn how to edit and to work out the basics as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See also the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability re systemic bias. The above seems to be an attempt to counter such, apparently not consciously ? Aoziwe (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Blythwood No this is not me, this is our initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/SCAR_2016 ! I don't know anything about the one you are writing about. Janstrugnell (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think this discussion has probably achieved all it's likely to, so it can probably be closed. Most or all of the contributors have been contacted with things like Teahouse invites. Blythwood (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Improper moves by User:Nicole Sharp

• User:Nicole Sharp executed a number of improper and incorrectly executed moves this morning. She was cutting and pasting content rather than moving pages. I have instructed her to cease and desist here, and fixed one of her moves at Zaza-Gorani languages, but she did this a number of times. These should be fixed by someone with more time and patience than I have or by someone who is skilled at using bots. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear: I see that she performed a number of copy-and-paste moves which need to be reverted, but is it correct that the titles should indeed by hyphenated and not dashed?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Judging from Nicole Sharp's comment here it would seem she's overgeneralising one of the rules for the use of hyphens. She might not be aware of our manual of style section on n-dashes MOS:NDASH. The MOS doesn't say anything specific on the use in cases like Zaza-Gorani languages and it's probably open to interpretation but at least it gives some reasons to make the use of n-dashes here seem reasonable. Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the rest of the cut-and-paste moves from today. Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't personally care whether the titles have n-dashes or hyphens in language names (although User:Kwamikagami cares very much). The problem was the cut-and-paste method of moving articles. It's like Wikipedia Editing 101: Use the Move function, don't cut and paste. --Taivo (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I replied on my talkpage on the technical problem there: since both article titles already exist (a move was already executed with a redirect left behind), I can't move the page back to the original article title without the original article title's wikipage first being deleted by an admin. I can only copy and paste the wikicontent in those instances. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
        • @Nicole Sharp: Copy-paste moves kill the page history. Don't do that. If the move is completely non-controversial you might get the redirect deleted using WP:G6, or more generally you can list the move at WP:Requested moves. Alsee (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Please see the current discussion at "user talk:Kwamikagami#hyphenation" (@Kwamikagami:) and "user talk:Nicole Sharp#Improper moves." Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style (wikilinked above) and the Wikipedia entry for "Dash#Attributive compounds," as far as I can tell, the en dash is a correct usage for some language-family names (e.g. Trans–New Guinea, dashed) but not for all (e.g. Uralic-Yukaghir, hyphenated). However, if anyone has a citation for usage otherwise, I would defer to that. Most professional journals publish style guidelines for publication, so would probably just need to find a linguistic journal to confirm. Linguistic anthropology under the auspices of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) would be under the Chicago Manual of Style (the official stylebook for the AAA, which the Wikipedia article for "dash" mentions limits usage of dashes over hyphens). Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed a couple years ago. The en dash follows our MOS as well as several linguistic publications (those that bother with the difference at all, at least). Nicole mentions one of the uses of the dash, but there's also "Niger–Congo languages", which has the same rationale as "French–German border". — kwami (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Theedardanian

Theedardanian (talk · contribs) was warned for disruptive editing, after continued content removal and incivility. He now continues by targeting me. Asked him several times to support claims and tried to enter discussions, but to no avail (funny how when asked to support his claim in one of the "issues", he answers It isn't worth it. No matter what we say, no matter how much proof we bring here, you and your administrators will do whatever you agreed to do - which is to vandalize our history.. Examples of recent comments 1, 2, 3.--Zoupan 22:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like Theedardanian has been advised of the discretionary sanctions in this particular topic area. Perhaps a better venue would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Unless you'd prefer a community response?--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan (talk · contribs) Cameron11598 (talk · contribs) "Recent" comments : 21 July 2016 , 5 August 2016, 8 August 2016 . Really? Those aren't even recent. Keep going to administrators. Knowing they will defend you. Shame, shame. They can block me, they can block all albanians, all croatians and all bosnians whose history you have literally been vandalizing, whom you have been harassing, but you can't change the truth. I am really wondering how is it possible that you still are allowed to edit. And everytime you report me, I get an answer. I have to thank you, Zoupan. And I am pretty sure you will be here editing for a long time, while reporting people who do not agree with your vandalism, all because administrators side with you. Keep reporting me, I beg you to. It's quite a good thing to me, and to all of us, we can finally see why wikipedia has turned out to be just another serbian propaganda website. We can finally see how administrators openly take sides. Can't wait to see how this turns out. Administrators, I am ready and waiting. I know you will only prove my words. :) Theedardanian (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm going to step in here as a Croatian who has had some minor interaction with Zoupan (I did a GA review for an article submitted by Zoupan and had cordial interactions with them). Theedardanian, when you bring up an allegation of misbehaviour it is required to bring evidence along side it. This evidence is most preferably in the form of diffs, but, if you can point me to a talk page discussion or comment by Zoupan that would support your allegations of harassment that would be fine as well. To the comments about vandalism, again, diffs would be required but I have the feeling that this is referring to the Prizren Fortress, Dukagjin highlands, and Kastrati (tribe) articles and as such are accessible by the diffs provided by Zoupan. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Theedardanian I made  No comment on your behavior, I just mentioned you'd already had a discretionary sanction warning and that perhaps WP:AE was a better venue than ANI. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Days after article unlocked, OWN behavior began again

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

---

The WP:OWN behavior at Superman by User:BaronBifford has started again, days after the article was unprotected. Numerous editors on that article submitted evidence to the ANI whose last comment I believe was here. Today he is edit-warring here.

I'm not sure if we need to fully protect the article again, but that may be necessary. Editors commenting on the ANI referenced above were suggesting a topic ban. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So much for the 3 revert rule. Now I guess it's just the 1 revert rule. BaronBifford (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not limited to violating 3rr. Edit-warring can be one edit. Where the article was locked primarily due to your previous edit-warring, going straight back to the same pattern of editing is generally not going to end well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, WP:3RR states The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. clpo13_(talk) 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that the behavior with the edits resuming shortly after the article unlocked is a violation of WP:OWN and potentially WP:EDITWAR. -- Dane2007 ^talk 17:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I almost blocked the Baron, but I got distracted by a glaring redundancy in the article and removed it; probably nobody would complain, but now I don't want to take any action for fear of WP:INVOLVED objections. I'd suggest, however, that someone else block the Baron; when you're blocked for something, the block expires, and you quickly resume the actions that prompted the block, it's time for a significantly longer block. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford is aware he's on thin ice. Before we reach for the kryptonite, can we see if he sticks to the talk page like I suggested here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note: As an uninvolved administrator, I have reverted the article to the version that appeared when it was last fully protected. It would seem some positive contributions were reverted in doing. Unfortunately, this appears necessary for the editors to discuss how to move forward without engaging in an editor war. Hopefully someone can restore any positive changes endorsed by consensus once the immediate issues are resolved. As to the fate of the individual editor, I agree that there needs to be an additional step taken than simply just protecting the article and allowing the edit war to continue. Mkdw^talk 20:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the previous ANI and Talk:Superman. It's taken hours but here are my observations:

• There is a consensus among the editors at Talk:Superman that BaronBifford has exhibited WP:OWN: 1, 2, and 3. The last ANI also came to this conclusion.
• BaronBifford has knowingly ignored consensus, sometimes waiting weeks or months to pass, to implement their changes: 1.
• BaronBifford has occasionally resorted to WP:ATTACKs: 1, 2, and 3
• BaronBifford can work as a collaborative editor when they choose to do so. As seen this statement which led to Talk:Superman#COIE. The proposal was positively received and introduced here.

BaronBifford was already given WP:ROPE and warnings will only serve to waste more of the community's time. Their contributions do not exceed that of the need for collaboration. Despite their open distain bureaucracy, I recommendation that WP:PROBATION be placed against BaronBifford in lieu of a block/ban and be given these guidelines:

• Prohibition in editing any section currently under discussion (not archived) at the talk page except for changes that receive consensus at the respective talk page.
• Any content that has received a prior consensus cannot be changed without a new consensus being formed. Consensus must be determined by both a reasonable amount of participation and elapsed time.
• WP:1RR

TLDR: Specific prohibitions be placed against the editor in lieu of a topic ban or block. Otherwise a block under WP:DE and WP:IDHT per this. Mkdw^talk 01:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's unfair to lock all editors out of the article because of one edit warrior. Support unprotection, and blocking BaronBifford for the next two weeks. If he tries to continue the edit war with sockpuppet accounts, semi-protection or 30/500 protection can be used. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As an involved editor in this and as this will most likely be my last edit on Wikipedia for the seeable future as I have had it with this kinda stuff I wanna make sure I'm heard before I leave. The article already had an Admin NeilN involved on the talk page who was making suggestions to Barron when another admin decided to lock the article down. Why? Why lock out other editors when one is the issue? The history shows the OWNISH behavior by one editor, one. Now I'm sure I'll be told how I'm wrong, won't be the first time but the rest of us should not have been penalized when we have tried to work with him several times only to have the article locked down because he refuses to work with other editors.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• @DavidLeighEllis and WarMachineWildThing: I understand you're frustrated at the whole situation. The problem is that there is no clear consensus on how this should be handled. We've had calls for protection, blocks, editing restrictions, and more discussion. The article can be unprotected at any time but clearly unlocking the article before the situation is resolved does not work as evident the last time the article came off full protection. No one likes that the article is protected but unprotecting the article without having the edit war errupt again is completely contingent on blocking BaronBifford for which there is no consensus to do so. At least not yet. It does way more harm to the encyclopedia to allow the edit war to continue while we await an eerily quiet ANI thread to come to a consensus. That being said, they're clearly using this time to engage in the talk page. To what success, it's hard to say, but in the very least, I would like to see from them an acknowledgement that they will continue to do so for before making any contentious edits. Mkdw^talk 17:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No consensus for a block? Of course, there's (equally) no consensus for full protection, but it seems that you don't need any. I'll just wait until the article has been under six months of full protection, then file a request for Arbitration. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not even remotely comparable. The protection was never implemented as a solution to the root problem. It is not permanent and it is not the outcome of this ANI for which a consensus is being sought. The protection was a continuation of the previous measure implemented at the last ANI to allow this discussion to move forward. Locks are routinely implemented to for consensus to form during an edit war and a permanent full protection will not be the seeming consensus of this ANI either. Mkdw^talk 16:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Mkdw, but I don't think another round of full prot was the best solution here as it's not a single edit war that's the issue here but the continual edits and reverts of a single user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And I literally quote one line above, "The protection was never implemented as a solution...". It was to stop the immediate edit war. That's why we have Wikipedia:Protection policy. I also think you are misrepresenting the situation here NeilN. A single user?

• 20:27, 13 August 2016‎ TriiipleThreat (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,709 bytes) (+1,097)‎ . . (Undid revision 734362499 by BaronBifford (talk) not trivia, infoboxes are a quick overview) (undo | thank)
• 16:30, 15 August 2016‎ Tenebrae (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,730 bytes) (-672)‎ . . (Back to the same WP:OWN issue, with undiscussed wholesale removal of content, addition of contentious content, and no discussion beforehand on talk page. If this behavior continues, so must the ANI)
• 16:39, 15 August 2016‎ Tenebrae (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,730 bytes) (-672)‎ . . (Now you're edit-warring rather than following WP:BRD. I was about to discuss the issue on the talk page as you asked, but you edit-warred instead. I'm not spending any more time with back and forth. Returning to ANI)

Finding a solution is why we're here at ANI. Mkdw^talk 19:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I am misrepresenting the situation. The single user is BaronBifford. You might have missed this. [169], [170] In other words, the solution is WP:ROPE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I misread NeilN's comment and I'd like to strike a part of my previous comment. Mkdw^talk 02:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't miss it and they never even responded to you on the matter even after I asked them to do so. If more discussion or WP:ROPE is the consensus for a solution of this ANI, then I would naturally expect the protection to be removed. However, the fact that they ignored that direct inquiry and WP:ROPE had already been proposed in the past and demonstrated to be very ineffective as a remedy. I personally wouldn't support that recommendation as a solution because ROPE doesn't work if you keep feeding out more ROPE which is what we'd be doing yet again. We are essentially in the next step. Either prohibition on editing (such as using the talk page before making any edits to contentious sections -- which I think was already what you were asking them to do) or a block would allow editing to resume and known recourse to be applied without yet another ANI thread. Mkdw^talk 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block I have held off on doing this in hopes Barron would finally get it but to be quite frank I'm tired of the article being locked down because one single editor refuses to work with everyone and go by the consensus that is reached or even try to get one. We wouldn't be in this mess again for the second time in a month if they would stop OWNING the article. They have been given enough WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned and I quote "After all these years, I'm fed up. Fed up with hearing my professors joke about how shit Wikipedia is"[171]. They clearly do not care what anyone else thinks and after 2 ANI's for the same issue in just 1 month, something has to be done. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support short term block and a topic ban from all articles relating to Superman, broadly construed: Rope has been given here and quickly exhausted, and an article with not-inconsiderable traffic and editorial activity has already been put under protection once, for what seems to be issues that mostly arise out of BaronBifford's refusal to accept consensus. I don't feel we need to see this bounced back to ANI for a third time in just a couple of weeks before making a call here, not with the evidence presented and a look at the state of that talk page. I commend the other editors here who have been patient in trying to convince BB to respect the consensus process so as to retain his other contributions, but it seems he is not going to take advantage of that patience and advice, so a ban (to underscore that this behaviour is disruptive in general) and a topic or page ban (to remove this editor from work on a subject they clearly feel too passionately about to work on without WP:OWN issues) seem to be in order. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Hawkeye75

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

---

Hawkeye75 is clearly NOTHERE and needs to be banned. They began their wiki-tenure with personal attacks and edit warring. Although warned and blocked for both, they continue their problematic behavior, particularly edit-warring rather than discussion, after each block. They fundamentally do not understand BRD and refuse to participate in finding consensus. They have filed meritless and vindictive admin noticeboard reports. They also have a history of claiming they have begun nonexistent talk-page discussions to avoid the perception of edit-warring. A cursory review of this user's contributions and talk-page history shows that multiple editors have warned this user to change their ways, but they continue to editwar. A previous blocking administrator directed my concerns here due to Hawkeye75's claims of bias. Additionally, they have repeatedly violated the non-free content criteria and edit-warred to keep their preferred NFCC-violating images in articles, in spite of being warned and asked by multiple editors to stop.

Pages where this user has and continues to edit war, or revert and ignore BRD requests:

• Napa Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Infobox Disney resort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A Bug's Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Disneyland Park (Paris) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Disneyland Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Cars Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - First off, that single personal attack was already dealt with as I got a 3 day block. Second, the admin noticeboard report was not meritless, it was just posted on the wrong section. Third, when you say I have a history of making non-existant talk page discussions you only give 1 example (which isn't true). History is more than one. My edit on the page was at 12:11, August 7, 2016 (UTC) and than I posted a welcome template on your talkpage 3 minutes late (here). I'm not sure what your accusing me of here since most of this stuff happened before my block and I have learnt from my mistakes. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Second Comment - Your list of my "faults" is invalid. The first 4 resulted well before the block. Disneyland Railroad is an attraction, so it doesn't deserve a "train" infobox. GOG Mission Breakout - my photo was more clear (but no way to prove since it have been speedy deleted). Roger Rabit Car Toon Spin- it's fairly obvious that a 3 word list is A, B and C instead of A and B and C. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the issue is not your justifications for your edits, but the fact that you continually revert pages to your preferred version instead of opening discussion after being reverted. That is not how Wikipedia works. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, may I ask why you would be posting a "welcome template" on the talk page of an editor who has been editing since 2005? That's not 3 minutes late, that's more than a decade late. MPS1992 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see enough to justify another block yet, let alone a ban. Having reviewed the edits since their block, there's some low-level problematic stuff and what seems to be a good faith competence issue regarding image copyrights, but I can't justify blocking from that. Hawkeye75, would you care to explain your thought process for this edit? ‑ Iridescent 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Their post-block edits show either no understanding or active ignorance of BRD. Even after explicitly being asked to initiate discussion ([172] [173]), they ignore and instead continue to editwar. Either way, they show no sign of understanding the fundamentals of finding consensus and cooperatively editing. See particularly their post-block edits at Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout!, Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin, and Disneyland Railroad. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also note that their post-block editing at Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout! violated 3RR: [174], [175], [176]. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs)

@Iridescent: Yes, I was just mentioning how kind James was for giving Anna the barnstar. Anna has been a helpful admin. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@James Allison: All my edits are good faith. All those edits were contributing to the article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand the issue. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I again point you to guides on edit warring and consensus. At some point, competence is required. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• From my outside perspective I think that Iridescent has nailed it as good faith edits with some lower level problematic stuff. I would agree with James Allison that Hawkeye75 is exhibiting some lack of cooperative editing and issues understanding consensus. I think the key takeaway out of this is that Hawkeye needs to review WP:CONSENSUS and utilize talk pages more for content disputes. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - John from Idegon claimed I "edited" James's comment when all I did was fix the layout. James just broke WP:REDACT by editing his original comment when I had already replied. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I really don't see anywhere near enough for a site ban or a block here. I think this is an editor who is (for lack of a better term) salvageable (don't take it as an insult). These seem to be Good Faith Edits. They do need to work a bit on following WP:CONSENSUS but this doesn't reach the threshold for what I'd consider for "clearly NOTHERE". The thing is they are here to contribute. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)- I am having mixed thoughts about this proposal. Although I would agree with Cameron above that there is potential for the editor in question to BECOME an editor in good standing eventually, I have a problem with edits such as this and the response to the question put forth by iridescent above which is in no way indicated in the dialogue between Anna and Hawkeye75 which can be seen here Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong support banning Hawkeye75 The damage to volunteer contributor goodwill caused by this disruptive user greatly outweighs whatever paltry contributions he might make. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your text. I'm not sure if it breaks WP:MANUAL, but it's really hard to read. Also, I don't think it's very civil to call my edits "paltry", as I have made contributions to help Wikipedia. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You're doing yourself no favors with comments like this. That sentence is perfectly acceptable and you know it. As to your contributions, yes, you've made some. It's the quality of the edits that we're discussing, and their relationship to the problems you're causing for other editors. I think your intentions are good, but you really need to tone down the confrontational attitude. Katie^talk 01:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know it. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I had a moment of confusion when I saw this report because the reported user's name is way too close to that of User:Hawkeye7, who has been here for 11 years. I would suggest that a username change be made. To the crux of the matter, I would suggest that Hawkeye75 be warned they are skating on very thin ice. 3 blocks within a month of starting is not good. For now, I counsel to apply a little more WP:ROPE before enacting anything permanent. Blackmane (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have only had 1 block. I had 1 for 24 hours, than another 1 was added on during that. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Applying rope sounds like committing suicide... -- Mentifisto 11:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I saw this and was about to wade in in defence of Hawkeye7 a long term contributor until I read user blackmanes comment about the near identical user name, I suggest that if this user is to continue they be asked to change their user name to something that doesnt conflict. Gnangarra 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• +1 - I too thought this was Hawkeye7 and came here to their defence, 75 should rename themselves as it's clearly causing confusion, That aside I don't see any behaviour that warrants a block or ban ... yet!, They should be strongly warned and should now know they're on very thin ice here. –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Suggestion Here is an analysis for Hawkeye75. Out of 457 edits they have made exactly 8 to talk pages. I think the Hawkeye75 will be a great contributor once they learn the ropes here and begin to collaborate with the community. I propose that Hawkeye75 be restricted to achieving consensus for all edit they make on the talk page of an article before making any edits to the mainspace for three months, and that they adhere to the bold, revert, discuss cycle at all times.--Adam in MO Talk 02:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the user's history of edit-warring, I would second this proposal as the very least that should be done. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure about this BRD stuff. Who should be the first one to start a section on an article's talk page? Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye75: you really want to be sure of it to succeed. Strictly speaking, in the BRD cycle, the person who made the original bold edit should be the one to justify their edits on the talk page. In the best case scenario, a person reverting would use the talk page, if the reasons for reverting are nuanced.--Adam in MO Talk 03:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You know, I have never seen an editor with less than 500 edits create dialog such as you will find on his talk page with Anna Frodesiak or on NeilN's talk page and go on to succeed. His incessant Wikilawyering, mostly incorrectly such as his comment above regarding REDACT, which was not on point at all, his blatant incivility which he received one of his two blocks for (referring to an openly gay male editor as she and then it) and his general DICK attitude (here, for example) lead me to one conclusion. This is a person my father would have described as a "legend in his own mind". And they never ever succeed in a collaborative process such as Wikipedia. AGF is not a suicide pact. IMO, wasting productive editor's time with infinite time sinks such as this fella is far more damaging to the project than any value to be gained by keeping him around until the time comes that he screws the pooch so badly we have no choice left but an indef. Obviously, YMMV. John from Idegon (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not in the same place you are John, but I am moving in your direction. It doesn't seem that a consensus to ban is growing. I'd think if we are going to let this go one that we should shorten the rope.--Adam in MO Talk 03:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me how this is civil? I just want this to be resolved and I got personally attacked. Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, there are at least three admins participating in this thread. If you had been personally attacked, one would have noticed and responded. You are not being attacked, you are being critiqued, with evidence illustrating it. Several have argued not to indef you, but not one person has stated that there is any fault in the evidence presented, nor has anyone said the conclusions editors have drawn were incorrect. The consensus is that you should be given another chance, not that your behavior has been acceptable. John from Idegon (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (Source:WP:WIAPA) Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wikipedia:Mentorship --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think the name is an issue, per those who have commented on it, especially if 75 is going to be showing up at AN/I (were they laboring away quietly in some obscure corner of the pedia, there would be less of an issue) Advise a soft block on account of the username.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Why should I get a block for my name? When I created my account I didn't even know anyone's username. I tried "Hawkeye7" and it was already taken. Besides I haven't even come across Hawkeye7 while editing yet. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What soft block means is that you would have to pick another username because we try to avoid usernames that are confusing, you would not be prevented from editing once you registered a new username. That there is a risk of confusion is evidenced by the number of editors who came here under the impression it was Hawkeye7. I won't insist, but be aware that people may assume you are Hawkeye7, possibly using an alternate account.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support a softblock requiring selection of another username. Hawkeye7 is a highly productive editor who has nearly 10 years of useful contributions here. That editor does not deserve to be confused with an argumentative new editor deeply involved in problematic behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What Cullen328 said. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I too was confused by this name issue, having seen Hawkeye7's contributions to Wikipedia I struggled to understand the description of "paltry". I think that a username change is a must here as it borders on impersonation, plausibly unintentional, but, sufficiently problematic as to be actionable. Right now I can suggest only that a name change is required and that a WP:NOTHERE block is far too much. Mentorship sounds like a good idea, if issues persist then it may be appropriate to take stricter action such as a longer/long block. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328 and Davey2010, et al - I suggested exactly that a while ago! I completely concur that a name change is in order if not a WP:NOTHERE block. Thanks, Zero^talk 14:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with this particular forum, and what I am about to mention may already be known by the admins involved in this discussion, but I have had some past interactions Hawkeye75 that I did not appreciate, it started with the "Social media note" discussion that I started on the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror talk page. I brought this to Anna Frodesiak's attention, and she gave me advice on how the handle the situation. Soon after, Hawkeye75 posted an apology on my talk page, but the next day, he made an edit to it, and instead gave me this response; [177]. Anna responded to that here; [178]. It is important to note that this incident occurred before he received any blocks. Hopefully he has learned by now that this past behavior is not proper. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• The editor continues to demonstrate their utter inability to work cooperatively. I believe they have been given more than enough rope. Enough is enough. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Did you mean this, James? John from Idegon (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was attempting to refer to that entire conversation. Thank you. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Hi James, that was already brought up by John from Idegon who also called me a "dick". Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
        • JfI didn't call you a dick, @Hawkeye75: . Such mischaracterizations could easily lead folks to doubt your intent. Folks have taken their time to lend you valuable advice on how to avoid problems; you really should begin to listen. Tiderolls 12:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
          • I know i'll be probably ignored because you're busy ganging up on Hawkeye75 but, being my point of view totally neutral (i've just happened to stumble upon this discussion), saying that someone is acting with a "general dick attitude", as John from Idegon did, is the same as basically saying he's a dick, otherwise i could say that you're all acting like assholes and this would be fine. The user did some mistakes, for sure, but a lot of those mistakes were did in the past and he already paid for his actions. Anyway, his past or current behavior shouldn't be an excuse to come up with insults.
          • (Non-administrator comment) What Tide said above. There is a pile of editor experience involved in this thread and should 75 not begin to heed the advice given here, I'm afraid his career on this project will unfortunately be rather short. BTW, I also agree with the soft block re:Username. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No block, suggestion for moving forward: I've had interactions with the editor, most of which have been asking both themselves and another editor to stop bickering (1, 2). I believe 75 gets agitated easily, but this isn't helped by other editors responding in an equally combative manner. I agree with some of the suggestions above regarding gaining concensus for anything other than trivial edits to articles, and would like to see an editor agree to mentor 75. The idea of blocking at this time leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and guiding this editor should be our first step. Obviously, if 75 continues the above-mentioned negative behaviour, another block may be in order -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • But this ignores the "username" issue. I support Cullen328's suggestion for a softblock on the basis of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I've included that in my suggestion on 75's talk page, thank you for reminding me IJBall -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No ban, no block The premise of the original proposal is preposterous and James Allison should, at the very least, be trouted for suggesting it. Bans occur when an editor has completely exhausted the patience of the community after multiple egregious offenses and no good faith is possible. Hawkeye75 is far from reaching that point, therefore, the non-AGF premise of banning and tone set for this report are out of line. I support mentoring as suggested by NeilN and support guidance per Samtar's comments above mine. Further, I say let him keep his username. There are plenty of similar usernames in Wikipedia. If experienced editors aren't distinguishing between Hawkeye7 and Hawkeye75, that's on them. What's more, if they aren't taking the time to notice the difference, then they probably need to slow down, take a breath, and pay more attention. Indeed, the sharks circling around this newbie editor need to be scattered. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No block, definite username change, and some editors here need a trouting; Actually, Winkelvi, you are absolutely right. This is why our editors are turned away, because, we the regulars are like sharks spotting a lonely sea lion and thinking that it's dinner time. If I may up the recommendation that you have given to be; the users proposing a ban or block (aside from the soft block for a name change which is relatively reasonable and mild by comparison) against the editor being trouted and reminded that our community is diminishing and not growing exponentially with fresh meat coming in by the bucket load. The assumption of bad faith by a few editors here is quite extraordinary. Yes, Hawkeye75 is floundering quite a bit and has responded sub-optimally and crassly (in some instances) to this thread, but, I don't think that everyone's realized that the response by a few editors here is equal to or even worse than that (not for the language or civility, but, for biting a new editor's head off for not understanding Wikipedia yet, as if we're all paragons of virtue who've never made a mistake in our lives). Also, as I mentioned in my last comment, I support NeilN's suggestion of mentorship as that would help keep 75 out of the shark infested waters. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I hate to disagree but this user's behaviour, especially towards Anna Frodesiak and MorbidEntree is past the point where AGF can be applied. I am not getting involved in a suicide pact. As such, this user does need hard blocking. Zero^talk 16:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I applaud you all trying to give the benefit of the doubt here, but as Zero indicated, some of 75s behavior is destructive to the organization. Analogy. If a newer employee had a history of arguing with management and senior employees repeatedly even after warning, had sexualy harassed a coworker and gotten suspended for it, then upon return to work, blamed publicly the person they had harassed for the suspension, all the while continuing to argue with senior staff and management about any and everything, they would be terminated. NOT due to any legal issues, although those exist, but simply because an individual that behaves like that creates a toxic environment that drags the entire organization down. No we are not a company and editors are not employees, but don't you think we owe our fellow editors a less toxic environment? As I said above, I don't see a net positive in keeping people like this around. If he's arguing with Anna, one of the most understanding and patient admins we have, what makes you think mentorship is going to help. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. The least that should come out of this is mandated mentorship. John from Idegon (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Umm... to be blunt, John you're comparing sexual harassment to the behaviour of 75 here? are you serious? and if so, diffs please (or point me to it if it has already been posted) because that is one hell of an accusation to make, and I don't think its merely a part of the analogy as the rest of it is in line with the behaviour that I have seen (argumentative). I assume this is specifically regarding Anna Frodesiak, I haven't seen any diffs of serious misbehaviour on her talk page but will be taking a look at it (I assume that's where I'll find whatever it is you're referring to). Also, Zero, this isn't a suicide pact, if I had the evidence in front of me that had convinced me that this editor was not going to be a productive (or couldn't be a productive) member of the community, as is expected with WP:NOTHERE, then I would be advocating block. I'll remind you both that diffs are a necessity and not some vague attributions of misbehaviour. E.g. Sexual harassment with no evidence (if I've missed it point me to it) and also "especially" towards Anna Frodesiak, which I am inclined to believe, but, also MorbidEntree which is the first mention of them I've seen here with the exception of a single diff which indicates no violation of any policy honestly. Bickering in a mild form is not something that will draw my attention especially where the offending phrase is "cut it out" and "do something useful", a bit rude, but, not enough for a block. I haven't seen either of you post a diff that indicates WP:NOTHERE. I've seen a few diffs which are problematic, including a violation of WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS where the editor has made false accusations with the intent of having another editor reprimanded. I would recommend a short block based on that alone if not for the rest of this thread. Bear in mind, this editor has had two blocks total; one of 24 hours that Anna Frodesiak upped to 8 days while the editor was blocked. As such, I am going to treat as a single extended block. As it stands, I see big bites being taken out of the editor for transgressions that I don't see as being on par with the punishment. You claim WP:NOTHERE, but, your diffs indicate WP:CIVIL. An issue yes, but, not the same one as is claimed. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Tell me, that you are not referring to this as sexual harassment? it's a stupid thing to say, referring to a person as it, but, Anna Frodesiak came to the editor's talk page and threatened to block them because of the incorrect use of a gender pronoun that I don't think was made in bad faith per MorbidEntree themself saying so. I am honestly just seeing more WP:BITE the more I look. Hawkeye75 is tendentious and that's a problem, but, your responses (not literally meaning you two but in general) are not much better. Perhaps this has reached the point of serious frustration, but, I can't say based on what I've found or what has been posted that the blame lies entirely on Hawkeye75. Also, I'd like to add, Hawkeye75 stop quoting passages in policies you clearly don't understand. Especially not to admins and editors who have been here for years, it's not a good approach. If you have an issue with something an editor has said, bring it up and talk like a human not like a policy quoting machine. Person-person communication will get you far further than Machine-person communication will. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that the pronoun issue may not have been an intentional personal attack, 75 had a history of making personal attacks at that point. The NPA block was justified even if the pronoun incident was not a personal attack. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The evidence of NOTHERE is in the diffs I've linked above. 75 refuses to engage in finding consensus, even after explicitly being asked to do so. I would again emphasize that 75 violated 3RR after being warned and blocked for edit warring. Further, 75's comments above show no understanding that edit-warring is unacceptable. I see no evidence that 75 understands that what they did was wrong and will change their ways. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, since my original comment this issue has spiraled even further. I still recommend that no block be imposed and am failing to see how Anna's proposal will work, it'll just isolate the editor further from the community. My AGF has, at this point, been stretched out too far as well. My apologies for wanting to trout editors chasing for a block, I am starting to see why it was requested in the first place, but, still stand by an indef being too trigger happy. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• No block or ban at this time I can imagine some confusion arising from the similarity between Hawkeye7 and Hawkeye75 - some have suggested a requirement that a rename be requested. If Hawkeye75 recognized that the concerns are valid, I would think they would welcome the thought of a rename, as a chance to start over without the baggage of the old name, but I'm not seeing any evidence that Hawkeye75 accepts that there is a problem. I hope Hawkeye75 will pause to think about the number of editors who have commented, not a single one of which has disagreed that the editing is problematic (the best that can be said is that some think a ban is premature), then voluntarily think about how best to move forward, which might include a request for a rename, might include a request for a mentor, might include a commitment to more (non-snarky) use of talk pages or some combination.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment So what options do we have here friends? We all agree that we have an editor needs some help. Hawkeye75 has left no indication here or elsewhere that they intend to take the suggestions from this thread or those on their talk page, to heart. Since the opening of this ANI they have reverted an admin action on an AN, accused a regular and an admin of socking, [179]left a trout-worthy warning on a admin's talk page, and has been combative to suggestions. So who is going to step up and be a mentor?--Adam in MO Talk 03:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have something against me? You posted the comment of me telling an admin to not revert edits, but right after, I replied to the user claiming I didn't know he was an admin (which you never mentioned in your original comment) (and that you saw). I have already started making edits to articles and it's users like you who drive me away from Wikipedia. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I like to say something as a fairly new user. I've only been here 6 months. In those 6 months I did alot of reading on Wikipedia policies and looked for other Editors and Admins for input when I wasn't sure. I found the help, With that being said I have read everything here and alot of 75's actions are not only ban worthy but disrespectful. They have commented on another user talk page that I read in one of the references above [180] that they are 70, I find that very hard to believe, that they later deleted. From my stand point no one is stepping up to mentor for these simple facts,75 shows no signs of change, shows no sign they care about the name issue, they show no signs that they care about this ANI, and show no respect towards Admins. In closing if someone does step up then great, I hope it works but otherwise from what I see Ban is the only other option. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That was well before my first ban... Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when it happened, your clearly not 70 and it should have never happened to begin with, none of it should have. Your are not owning up to your issues. You can only use the I'm new or that was before my ban as an excuse for so long. Not to toot my own horn here but 6 months of editing with no bans, never been brought to ANI, and over 1000 edits. You have to want to listen and learn, it's as simple as that. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you should be bragging about 6 months of editing with no bans, that is quite common. This section of ANI is for after my ban, so anything before it has already been dealt with. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Last Comment/Reply This will be my last comment/reply on this. I'm very proud I haven't been banned or been brought to ANI in my first 6 months because I listened, learned, and asked for help from other Editors and Admins. I showed respect and treated others with such. I listened to their input whether I was wrong or right and I learned what is expected of editors. You've been here 7 1 month, so clearly it's not that common. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually his userpage box says 7 months but he's registered 7/13/2016 21:28. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction/clarification Anna Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Mitigation

This whole thread is about whether he should be booted or given some ROPE. Booted, and Wikipedia sustains a loss. ROPE, I think we can all guess, would be suicide.

As for mentoring, I don't think it would work. Posts at his talk and this whole thread should have already spelled out the problem and provided sufficient guidance. If he doesn't get it by now, mentoring won't help. Plus, it would be a further investment of community resources even if somebody was willing, and nobody is willing.

The amount of resources wasted so far in terms of keystrokes and reads compared to his 214 mainspace edits puts Wikipedia in the red. I would love to see several thousand mainspace edits to put Wikipedia back in the black.

I suggest, considering that his mainspace edits are constructive, that he be restricted to the mainspace only, with 0RR. After a certain amount of good edits there, he would be free to govern himself as he sees fit, whether that is getting himself blocked for good, or seeing the light and becoming a non-disruptive member of the community. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I endorse this proposal. If we are going to give rope, it should be as short as possible. -Adam in MO Talk 05:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

*Support restriction I must have missed where that could be an option but I think Anna has proposed a very good option because wouldn't that be mentoring in a round about way?Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would support this proposal in the absence of consensus for a ban. However, I think this will only lead to a waste of time and resources. Even after many, many threads on Hawkeye's talk page and this entire discussion, they show no sign of being able to work collaboratively. They have continued their slow burn edit war at Napa Rose, and after being reverted multiple times at Shocker (hand gesture), they vindictively removed appropriate sourcing and made a meritless argument for deletion. Hawkey shows classic signs of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I am skeptical that they will be able to follow the proposed restriction. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Good points, James. So, there are three paths here: block (definitely a loss to Wikipedia), ROPE (likely a bunch more good edits and eventual block after another huge waste of keystrokes in discussion), or temporary restricted editing (a shot at a win).

So, what do we have to lose by choosing the third? Sure, it may not work out, but Wikipedia has a chance to get back what it lost.

If we could just think of a way to see him editing without conflict, that would be great. His problem is interaction. He makes good, constructive edits. His English is fine. He knows his subjects. I suggest we define editing that would be purely constructive and absolutely non-controversial? Then, he can get started while pouring through all those policies and guidelines and start to understand that they are mostly there for us to govern ourselves rather than cite against others. After 2,000 edits, the editor is free to do as he wishes. Wikipedia is repaid and the future is win-win.

‎Hawkeye75, what do you think of all this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If James Allison has a problem with me, than he can interact ban me. It seems as if he is the only editor on here that doesn't want me to succeed. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are saying, Hawkeye75. What do you think of the idea of you editing articles without interacting with anyone on any page? No talk page posts. You just improve articles for a while and nothing more. I'm talking about you adding content to articles and not reverting if you are reverted. That sort of thing. What do you think about that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Anna Frodesiak's suggestion but under the same rationale as James Allison's suggestion - by which I mean if there is no consensus for a block, as opposed to a community ban. I still think a name change would be ideal. As for the pun, Anna, thanks for the laugh first thing on a British morning. :-) EDITOR'S NOTE: I have moved to a full support on NeilN's proposal but I would support this in the event of a lack of consensus on the indef block proposal. Zero^talk 08:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support as stated above, I'm all for anything which keeps 75 on Wikipedia and editing. They are a good editor in need of some guidance and a strong cup of tea to relax - thank you Anna for a reasonable proposal -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Removing above as the editor clearly can't be bothered to listen or take advice. We've all wasted too much time on this -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• 'Support as Anna has suggested above, but with a 3-month window for the restrictions and, hopefully, mentoring (if someone is willing to do so). After that, if they have not learned how to function according to policy, then WP:ROPE will play itself out. That said, if ROPE is the next progression, I don't think an indefinite block would be warranted, rather a three month block would be appropriate. Other than the possibility of frustration from affected editors, I see no harm in letting them come back after a three month block, rather, it's a way to try and work with them. Anything else (indef or ban) will likely promote a "return" (yes, that's a euphemism). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Striking the above - see comments in next section as to why. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle. If someone has trouble with the D in BRD, and a tendency to edit-war, I think the last thing we should do is to ban him or her from Talk pages; communication by edit-summary is awkward and rarely adequate. And how is mentoring supposed to work in mainspace? This situation would be much better addressed with a 0RR, 1RR or similar requirement to seek consensus. I would not oppose a temporary restriction from noticeboards, projectspace, or even other editors’ userspace, but cutting off all means of discussion is going too far, and can only exacerbate lone-wolf tendencies.—Odysseus1479 22:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Odysseus. Perhaps this would be a more workable restriction:

• For the next six months Hawkeye shall limit his editing to Article, Article talk and Draft space only.
• Exceptions to this would be help projects based in Wiki space such as Teahouse and mentoring projects, only for the purpose of seeking help at those projects and with the caution that their communication be devoid of snark and argument.
• Hawkeye75 is specifically banned from User talk for that period.
• 1RR restrictions shall apply.
• Hawkeye75 is encouraged to find a mentor.

That should actually be enforceable and useful to help him break his bad habitd. John from Idegon (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, it would earn him a ton of goodwill to realize that through no fault of his own, his username is somewhat problematic. Changing usernames is easy. WP:CHU is the place. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think anything involving interaction will lead to an indef within a short time. Patterns repeat themselves. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The trick is to find a way he can make a couple of thousand edits without needing the talk pages. Keep it simple and brightline. We've all seen what a bunch of fuzzy restrictions like "...their communication be devoid of snark and argument..." lead to: the user starting to argue over definitions.

Curing him of any lone-wolf tendencies or interaction issues is a luxury. That ought to come after first considering Wikipedia's needs. Wikipedia took (and is taking) a hit in terms of resources. The first priority one is to get that back in edits. Then, if we can help him, fine.

Anyhow, since I last asked Hawkeye for his views, he has made four edits elsewhere. I hope he will respond soon. If he simply doesn't then what? ROPE, probably as there will likely be no consensus for an indefinite block. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think whoever has a problem with me can just interact ban me. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to those who supported this (and those who opposed too as your input was valuable). Considering 75's reluctance, and the overwhelming support for indef, I think this is now off the table. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Recommend indef block

I believe I was one of the first to interact with Hawkeye75, welcoming them after receiving an email from them and I know my patience is exhausted. They'd rather play silly games with their user page [181] [182] rather than sensibly responding here. [183] Everything is going to be an argument with this editor (Exhibit A: their username), for little gain. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he won't even consider changing his username tells me everything I need to know. That very user name, combined with everything else about this editor, gives me a strong sense that we're all being trolled here. Support an indef – if NeilN thinks an editor is not worth the trouble, there's an almost certain likelihood that they aren't... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block I had hoped it wouldn't come to this but after my recent dealings with 75 on this very ANI and them saying nothing before their first ban mattered, as Neil said above I'm starting to think this is just a game for them and this is a big waste of time that needs to end. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block After reviewing all of the comments and interactions that happened after my post supporting giving this user rope, I am in support of an indef block. Every single thing becomes a giant issue with this user (ex. username) and instead of working collaboratively or towards a solution, the user constantly has excuses for their actions. I can assume good faith until it becomes evident that the user is not here to collaborate peacefully in building the encyclopedia. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support I'll be editing my !vote for Anna's proposal shortly. Clearly giving this user any more rope now would be a waste of time. I did say with regards to Anna's proposal that a name change is in order. If he cannot do simply that then we have a problem - if someone called themselves Patient 0, I would ask them to change their name too and I would like to think an administrator would ask the same! That aside the playing around in user space as opposed to any article/AV work is definitely characteristic of WP:NOTHERE. Zero^talk 09:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Considering opposition to the mitigation plan, including 75's reluctance, and his most recent edits, I see no other way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support based on editor now imploding before our eyes. Ugh. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block. I honour the good-faith assumptions and newbie-friendliness of many users in the above discussion, but the way Hawkeye75 has, on this very page, squandered all attempts to help him and all good will speaks volumes. I have to agree with NeilN that "Everything is going to be an argument with this editor, for little gain". Wasting constructive editors' time and patience (our chief resources, they are!) for little gain is always the best reason for an indef in my book. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC).
• Support Any effort to help Hawkeye75 are useless without their participation. They have never shown any indication that they are interested in working with other editors. Bye Felicia.--Adam in MO Talk 14:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - consider my attempts to find a middle ground withdrawn. Back to where I was a week ago and thanks for catching up. John from Idegon (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support (above comments struck) - the editor clearly can't be bothered to reply here sensibly or listen to the advice others and myself have given them. They're no longer worth the community effort -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support and frankly, given how much of this has already been going on their user talk page, I would say remove talk page access off the bat. It seems almost certain that blocking them without removing talk page access will immediately result in an "I didn't do anything wrong, as you can clearly see if you read WP:ALPHABET and WP:SOUP correctly"-type unblock request. If they want to appeal the block and sincerely understand what went wrong, there are other ways of dealing with that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think that this is a good idea, Hijiri88. Hawkeye75 is known for wikilawyering and this would be a preventative measure as opposed to a punitive one for this reason. Zero^talk 16:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't agree with you there. I'm 50/50 on whether a block would have an effect on their attitude. They don't have a history of extensive blocks so I'm not sure that they will immediately become argumentative. I think there is still enough left to give them the benefit of the doubt.--Adam in MO Talk 16:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Can I point out here (no comment yet on the case itself)- just for the record- that although indeed the editor hasn't commented here, he says he is in British Columbia; if that's the case, then his last edit was at c. 01:00 his time, and that it's currently 09:00 there. Ergo, our discussion has been taking place in the middle of the night. Can I suggest no hasty closure for a few hours, on this procedural. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Best of luck Well I guess there's no chance of revival. Hawkeye75 (talk) July 2016-August 2016. —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: There is always still a chance. But you refuse to participate in community discussion and address the community's concerns regarding your behavior.--Adam in MO Talk 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Recluctant support based on review of the ANI and ANEW threads, and the user's talk page. The rope has run out. GAB^gab 22:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose please reconsider your decision to give up on them so fast. We all make mistakes, some bigger and some smaller, but what matters most is that we learn from our mistakes and move forward. Mona778 (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support I had thought to err on the AGF side but fault for this entire fiasco can only be laid at Hawkeye75's feet. @Mona778:, there is certainly a time and place to make and learn from mistakes. The idea is to understand when a multitude of editors are pointing out a plethora of mistakes and think "hmm, maybe I am going about this the wrong way." What we have here is none of that; all there is, is argumentatum ad infinitum. Blackmane (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

This discussion is final but Hawkeye75 is requesting an unblock. They may be amicable to discussion now. I have begun as discussion with them on their talk page.--Adam in MO Talk 00:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Montanabw misrepresenting sources and guidelines in AfDs

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

---

User:Montanabw, who has been brought here several times for various behavior matters, has repeatedly and blatantly misrepresented sources and guidelines in AfD discussions, in support of keeping the articles in question. Corrections from various editors have had no impact on the pattern. I have collected examples from the last several weeks below; other editors can certainly attest to examples going back much further. It's not clear, nor is it important, whether these misrepresentations are intended or not; what is clear is that they are a pattern of unacceptable behavior.

At this time, I am not proposing an enforcement action, nor am I precluding the possibility of one; I'm seeking 1) to establish the record of this pattern for the future, and 2) to establish a firm consensus that misrepresenting sources, policies, and guidelines is unacceptable and must stop.

To editors Agricola44, Bearcat, Lemongirl942 and Caeciliusinhorto: As involved parties, you may have something to add.

To preclude another matter: Montanabw has accused me of "personal attacks" over the tone with which I've responded to several of these incidents. I concede that I could have chosen gentler words, but it must be stated that I have only ever commented on Montana's actions as an editor, never on any other aspect of her person. I think I've stayed well within the margins of WP:NPA, but Montana is of course welcome to press that matter further if she chooses. This discussion, however, is about misrepresentation of sources and guidelines with respect to deletion.

Evidence

I've pulled the most relevant quotes from recent incidents below, but I encourage readers to examine these incidents in their full contexts before commenting.

Date	Link	Claim	Reality
26-Jul	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada national korfball team	"if a sport is notable enough for a wikipedia article, then as a rule the national teams (at least of major nations) are also notable"	No such rule or guideline exists in WP:NSPORT or in WP:ORG.
29-Jul	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari Kiyama	"it appears that editors are beginning to add sources."	Page history revealed no addition of sources from when the page was PROD'ed to when this statement was made. As page has been deleted, this can only be confirmed by an admin.
2-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Galletti	"Sources provided are not ideal but provide adequate number of credits to pass WP:GNG."	WP:GNG addresses sourcing, and is not met by unsourced claims.
2-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam McCune (columnist)	"one can easily pull up some of his work there, and he really did win the award. So WP:BASIC is met."	WP:BASIC specifically excludes the use of non-independent material for establishing notability.
2-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Urban Dance Factory	"The "passing mentions" are more than adequate to me"	Trivial mentions do not count toward WP:N.
7-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Whalen	"Any of these standing alone, won't get to notability, I agree; but together they might, as in some cases, multiple sources can "stack""	Wikipedia:N makes no affordance for "stacking" sources that fail the criteria in order to reach notability.
14-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Christian	"Important to separate ton[e] from content. There is enough here to pass GNG."	WP:GNG addresses sourcing, and is not met by unsourced claims; apparently not the first time the responding editor has had to state this to Montana.
14-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Marmite Sisters (2nd nomination)	"The main source appears to be a print source"..."I'd AGF on the print source."	"1. The source in question is about a different subject entirely, with no evidence that it mentions this subject. 2. The subject of WP:AGF is editor behavior; it in no way addresses determining the validity of sources.
16-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Corday	"A single major article (LA Times) combined with multiple other sources meets GNG. And if "borderline," the presumption is in favor of keeping."	WP:GNG says neither of those things.
19-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fletcher Beasley	"This is one of those situations where we need to "stack" notability but when we do we get to WP:N"	Wikipedia:N makes no affordance for "stacking" sources that fail the criteria in order to reach notability.
19-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Romanovsky	"Per most of the above, and notably we have another case of "googleism," and holding liberal arts scholars to the identical (and inappropriate) standard for scientists... peer review isn't the only indicia of notability, and this individual has multiple other reasons for notability beyond NPROF."	Called out for misrepresenting the preceding discussion on that page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swpb (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Could the OP please provide diffs. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The profound misunderstanding of GNG is troubling. Especially as it appears to be a repeat issue. Bearcat should probably comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding the stacking issue, that provision is made in WP:Notability (people) where a single source is bot sufficient to demonstrate motability multiple sources can be put together. I'll look at the rest later. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with many of these (possibly any of them – I can't access the second). Whereas things like GNG show the 'rule', it is the interpretation in light of the facts that is where the devil is. Saying 'A single major article (LA Times) combined with multiple other sources meets GNG' is a valid talk page interpretation of "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" in my book. Aside from that there are some bigger claims that are not supported by diffs, which I'd like to see before commenting any further. – SchroCat (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Response from Montanabw

I hope this can be a "snow close" and I would respectfully suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG be considered. My response:

• I have previously stated at my talk that I began to become interested in following AfD due to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts,which pops up on my watchlist almost daily (and the number of article about women that are PRODed and AfD'd is ridiculous, though some are appropriately tagged), and then I'm sometimes drawn to other various topic lists and pages at AfD. swpb is a pretty regular contributor to PROD and AfD.
• swpb seems to have difficulty understanding that others may not agree with his/her personal interpretation of policy and that WP:Consensus can change. I do lean "inclusionist" (and I am with the consensus about 64% of the time) and I do consider AfD to be deletionist-dominated. I find that the interpretation of WP:N at AfD is applied inconsistently and that some of the SNG guidelines have a problematic consensus that is also inconsistent. To that end I have initiated a couple of RfC's and several other discussions. That said, consensus takes time to evolve, and in the meantime, as I look at articles at AfD, PROD and AfC, particularly those on women, I am appalled at the systemic bias that exists in both the interpretation of WP:N and in some of the SNG guidelines that have been created for various topics.
• On the other hand, I am also appalled at the amount of true cruft that is created and note that the folks at NPP, AFC and AFD do have their work cut out for them in thinning out the articles on junior hockey league players and garage bands.
• But essentially, I have not misrepresented "policy" (which is at WP:N) and "guidelines" (which include WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and several other pages, some of which contradict each other). I have expressed my interpretation and understanding of the above and have frequently offered opinions that differ from that of swpb and other AfD regulars. It's a rather walled garden atmosphere there, particularly for those like me who lean inclusionist.
  • I will acknowledge that I made an incorrect statement here, where I thought another user had added sources, but that other user had actually just done some other cleanup. That was a good faith mistake, and I said so at the time. This is, in fact, a classic example of the scorched earth approach that swpb takes when people disagree with him/her.
• In turn, swpb has responded with threat and intimidation that include but ware not limited to, the following. For now, I am only posting examples that occurred just on my talk page and swpb's (not including many spats elsewhere at various AfD discussions now too numerous to list:

1. swpb's first round of personal attacks on my talk page, in full before I hatted and then deleted the discussion: [184] Of note, his/her comment: "To Montana, it would be unwise to conclude from Andy's incorrect comment that you can't eventually find yourself in trouble. I don't expect you will, but I've been around enough to be confident that you can." (this referencing Pigsonthewing. RexxS also commented there).
2. I decided to discuss swpb's own incivility at his/her talk page (discussion in full before deletion): [185]
3. Round two of swpb's attacks on my talk page, just prior to this ANI, began thusly, and I will show diffs of swpb's multiple and changing edits there:

1. stating: "There is no justifying your behavior."
2. same and doubling down
3. WP:NPA -- accusation of lying
4. threat: "don't make the mistake of thinking I'm the only one who's noticed"
5. adding a "second warning"

• Finally in posting this ANI, swpb uses vague generalities to misstate my record as a 10-year wikipedia veteran. Of course I have been "brought here several times for various behavior matters" by various disgruntled users. I've also been here several times to discuss incidents involving others (someone once said I've turned up on over 100 ANI cases one way or another) But as my absolutely clean block log and my list of 20+ personal ANI cases (which may be incomplete) shows, I have never been blocked or subjected to any sanction at ANI beyond the occasional admonishment to be nicer.
• So, I most respectfully suggest that swpb take a hard look in the mirror, recognize that his/her tone is filled with shaming, threats, attacking "you statements" and an assumption of ill-will and nefarious motives that simply does not exist.. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Close/collapse the entire thread: OP states that no administrative intervention is sought at this time. ANI is a place to seek such intervention. The original post states that the intent is to seek consensus on a point of policy. ANI is wholly unsuited to achieve such a consensus: Clarifications of policy should be sought on the talk page of the contested policy, or if not such talk page is appropriate, at the Village Pump. Even construing the individual cases cited in OP's favor, this is merely a matter of disputed practical application of policies and guidelines. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Montanabw's policy arguments listed above are incorrect: Even then, they are not sanctionable, and thereby are not appropriate to bring to ANI. So long as an argument of policy or guideline is made in good faith, it is fine. Taking a bunch of what are at worst nonfrivolous arguments to extend or apply policy and using them to bootstrap a claim of a pattern of disruption is not a proper way to resolve AfD disputes. In AfD, the proper answer for asserting an improper point of policy or guideline is to argue at the AfD. And if the closer adopts an improper point of policy or guideline in the close, the proper forum is DRV. Even if we assume Montanabw's arguments are both incorrect and disruptive of AfD, then a sanction might lie, but I doubt it would at such an early stage, when the length of the pattern OP asserts is all of a few weeks, and comprises less than a dozen individual AfDs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also the complaint about the Marmite Sisters one is downright silly. Montanabw says she would AGF about a source. It took me a minute to really understand why there was even a complaint about this, and then understand why I didn't see it. The reason is because that use of the phrase "AGF" in reference to the content of offline sources comes from practice at WP:DYK. See {{DYKtickAGF}} and how that template is used at DYK. The meaning is not to assume good faith about a source, but to assume that the editor who added the source was acting in good faith when he or she added it, rather than assuming the source does not exist or that it does not say anything that the editor who added it claimed it to say. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I support Close/collapse the entire thread. The OP does not actually appear to be seeking sanctions here, I'm not convinced that Montanabw's behaviour requires sanctions, and as far as I can see, the OP still has not provided diffs. I am against boomerangs on principle, so let's just shut this down with maybe a low-key warning to the OP. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• • I've been away all day so just seeing this and getting to this late, but on a quick glance I see that a difference of opinion is being construed as policy and behavior violations. This is a dangerous mind set for any editor. There is nothing here that is sanctionable and AN/I is not the place to collect diffs for future use, an action which implies there will be future problems, an assumption of bad faith. Further, I'm not happy about opening this with allusions to past behaviors for which there are no diffs; this clearly creates a biased mind set in the reader. I'd close this thread with a warning to the poster that AN/I is a place for immediate and possibly urgent issues which are clear violations of the site regulations and should not be used to air grievances.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

Behaviour of Swpb

From the essay Wikipedia:ANI advice #General advice about opening a dispute: "ANI will review your actions as well as your dispute and you run the risk of being sanctioned yourself. If your behavior isn't exemplary, don't accuse others." I'm afraid that I find the post from Swpb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Montanabw's talk page completely unacceptable and a violation of NPA:

• You lied (or were extremely un-diligent, given how many warnings you've gotten) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Marmite Sisters (2nd nomination) and you got caught, again. Absolutely no one is buying your "attack" line. And don't bother replying here or on my talk: I won't be reading it, and there is no justifying your behavior. AN/I gets more plausible every time you do this—don't make the mistake of thinking I'm the only one who's noticed.

I have no problem someone in calling a spade a spade, or even calling a mendacious statement a lie, but to characterise Montanabw's suggestion of "Keep or merge to Graham Barnfield. The main source appears to be a print source, and given this group was active in the 80s and 90s, I am not surprised that Google is light. I'd AGF on the print source. At the very least, merge and preserve the article history in case someone wants to do more work on it." as a lie stretches credulity beyond its limit. I shudder to think what Swpb would have written if Montanabw had just suggested "Keep". It needs an apology from Swpb: they are far too invested in that AfD and need to realise that other editors can legitimately hold different opinions from them. I'm guessing that the outcome of the deletion debate will be 'merge', which ought to be the trigger for Swbp to redeem themselves with a gracious acknowledgement that Montanabw's !vote was reasonable. --RexxS (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved Commentary

The misstatements of policy, which are on the line between individual interpretation and deliberate, aren't much more than what is in most AfDs. When looked at in the AFD tool [186] there definitely seems to be a propensity to keep first, but that isn't a crime. Suggest collapsing this whole thing and closing it and everyone just move on.--Savonneux (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Latest IP of my infatuated stalker

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

---

86.187.173.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest IP of the edit-hopper described here and here. I figure I'll keep wacking away at the IP's until the edit filter goes up then see what happens. AccountForANI (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, edits rolled back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

WhereverTV COI/SPAM vandalism continuing

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

---

Can I get a rush block on AntonioTelevize (talk · contribs)? I took them to WP:COIN over a week ago regarding three years of sneaky SPAM regarding the non-notable IPTV service WhereverTV where they slyly tried to make the link to their paid service look like the official link for a television network's live stream, and it went unnoticed for months. Several warnings have been issued since then to knock off the spamming along with the COIN notice; all have been ignored and AntonioTelevize is clearly playing WP:IDHT in not responding at all to their editing concerns. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Done & Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

"a person who is quite incapable of ..."

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

---

One editor who is also an admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise) wrote a comment about me as a person (... a person who is quite incapable of ...-diff). It is important to take in consideration the context of this comment:

• it was written during my last ban appeal, by an editor involved in numerous disputes against me, with main goal to keep me banned
• this comment is only a continuation of their long-term practice to join (I think every) noticeboard discussion about my conduct to write comments with serious accusations against me without any or without serious evidence, sometimes even admitting "It's difficult to provide diffs..." (diff). The above mentioned comment is probably the first and only in which they tried to present at least one diff as evidence for their accusations - which is proven to be unjustified (diff)
• this comment is written by an editor with about 80,000 edits (link) who wrote it although they no doubt know that WP:NPA does not allow comments about other editors
• this editor is also an admin who are "expected to observe a high standard of conduct" per Wikipedia:Administrators

I respect and highly value work of Future Perfect at Sunrise at wikipedia and I don't propose that they should be blocked or banned or any serious sanction.

• If my perception is right, I would appreciate if Future Perfect at Sunrise would be warned to try to adhere to Wikipedia:No personal attacks more strictly when they interact with me and to:
  • never write comments me as a person
  • to always present serious evidence in form of diffs for serious accusations they write against me.
• If my perception is wrong, I would be glad that I made mistake and I would most sincerely apologize to everybody, especially to Future Perfect at Sunrise.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• An editor with a recently successful appeal at WP:AN should not be making this much noise: 8 August 2016 + 17 August 2016 + here. A longer extract from the diff in the OP is 'he is still the same old type of tendentious "polite POV warrior" – a person who is quite incapable of constructively engaging other editor over content disagreements, but covers up his stonewalling under a fixed facade of never-failing formal "civility"'. Comments like that are common and reasonable when a case is discussed at an admin noticeboard—does Antidiskiminator imagine that their two-year topic ban was entirely spurious, and that anyone presenting a negative opinion about their appeal is guilty of a personal attack? If this pattern continues much longer, I would support an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Other aspects aside and pace Johnuniq, I agree with Antidiskriminator that editors, especially admins, shouldn't say in public that somebody is incapable of something. It's overly personal by a mile, and not merely "a negative opinion about their appeal". Future's wording was careless at best. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC).

• It is perfectly acceptable to say someone seems "incapable of" interacting with others constructively, editing the encyclopedia from a neutral point of view, refraining from original research, or anything else, as long as any such claim is based on evidence either already presented or readily presented on subsequent request. I think that if this ANI thread is not withdrawn promptly I would question whether a BOOMERANG should not happen and the earlier narrowly passed appeal be annulled per the actual close wording: The ban is lifted, per WP:ROPE and WP:AGF. If problems resume, return here to request reinstatement. Note that WP:ROPE is about giving users "enough rope to hang themselves", and does not mean that things should continue as though the sanction was never in place and the sanctioned user can go back to being treated as though nothing had ever happened: causing trouble with frivolous and disruptive attacks on other editors like is happening here immediately after such a close is a very poor sign. @Antidiskriminator: I strongly urge you to strike your above OP comment and withdraw this request so we can just pretend thisnever happened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• The only thing I'll say about this is that AD's behavious in this thread (and all its previous incarnations) exactly confirms the correctness of my negative opinion of him. Yes, he does seem incapable of behaving in any other way. Shrug. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• I honestly don't see a personal Attack here. Could it have been phrased with more tact? Probably. I don't see this as actionable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• This is a demonstration of the complete failure of Antid to get a point when validly made, but instead overreact to less-than-tactful comments. Specifically, this is an attempt to "correct the record" after the lifting of his TBAN. Is he going to start a thread about everyone that voted for the TBANs against him? Nothing actionable here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• I also see nothing actionable here, to the point that I was tempted to close this. However, to respond to the main part of the thread (which appears to be this diff), you stated yourself that context is everything, and indeed it is. Fut.Perf. supplied this diff in the following sentence to "a person who is quite incapable of constructively engaging other editor over content disagreements". In supplying this diff, I cannot see how it is possible to contrive the statement as a violation of NPA. Blunt yes, I cannot see it as an attack.

As it stands, I do not see administrator intervention being required. I also suggest that you leave the matter be from this point onward. Making noise about those who opposed your ban appeal is in very poor taste, and is most unwise. Leave it be. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 02:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Antidiskriminator, for someone who recently got out of a hole (topic ban lifted 16 August [187] with very little consensus), you seem intent on continuing to dig. Not only have the following editors voted to enact or retain your topic ban ([188], [189], [190], [191], [192]): Joy, Peacemaker67, Bobrayner, Now Look What You've Done, Dentalplanlisa, Diannaa, NellieBly, Nick-D, Ca2james, KoshVorlon, FormerIP, Mendaliv, The Banner, and Cullen328, you have repeatedly bothered Drmies by repeatedly accusing him of topic-banning you and other things [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198] and also by repeatedly trying to get him to agree that Fut. Perf was guilty of violating NPA: [199], [200] (and since you got no agreement there you took it here to ANI, even though I tried to warn you that this repeated re-litigating was not a good idea [201]). I think this ANI thread is more or less proving your detractors' points, and you may well be on your way to another topic ban or worse. (By the way, I was not involved in any of the topic ban discussions nor do I edit in that topic area.) Softlavender (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Abdullsaed: is he likely to improve?

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

---

Would some other non involved admin please review his talkpage request for an unblock? I was the blocking admin. Pinging also MER-C (talk · contribs). Buckshot06 (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's quite evident from his unblock requests that his English skills are not sufficient to edit constructively. I would have indeffed him up front. MER-C 12:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

While I'm sure there is sincerity in their desire to contribute, there just isn't sufficient proficiency in English to do so. At a minimum, English proficiency needs to be at a near professional level. Blackmane (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC) See comment below.

I'm sorry -- you're saying that someone's English needs to be at "near-professional level" in order to contribute here? EEng 13:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Near-native may be more appropriate. Not all of us here are English professionals but most of us are fluent speakers. Zero^talk 14:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Still disagree, if you can figure out what it is they're saying, generally, that's all it takes. Grammar and tonal issues can be handled with a copy-edit provided that their writing isn't so bad as to be impossible to understand. If you can en-3 or better, you should be fine with limited to no assistance. There is a reason those ubx's say "can contribute with", it's because they're not precluded from contributing. We have people whose English is rather poor and who are difficult to understand and yet still contribute to the .en Wiki. There's a reason for that, one, nobody's going to ban based on poor English alone and two, poor English =/= poor contributions. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Bang on, Mr. Dude. EEng 17:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether he should or shouldn't be unblocked, I concur with Mr rnddude and EEng that a high level of proficiency in English is not necessary and that this editor's English appears to be good enough that he could contribute usefully. Bondegezou (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes, you need en-3/4 or higher, but this user appears to be in en-2 territory. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that I should clarify my comment. By "professional", I mean within a professional or even employment environment. I certainly get that there are editors who do not have the nous to create 100% grammatically perfect constructs, I certainly would not imply I do but there is certainly an expectation that an editor would be able to get their point across to another editor with minimal interpretation or requests for clarification. Conversely, any replies to the editor should, in a perfect world, be understood factoring in things like nuance and inflection. Apologies if my phrasing caused any misunderstanding. Upon re-reading my initial comment and their edits, I'm striking my determination of their proficiency. However, I do stand by my initial comment that i believe they are sincere in their desire to contribute even if they're not necessarily going about it the right way. Blackmane (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd put the bar at en-3/4 as well. Capitalisation and punctuation should be correct most of the time. Anyway, this discussion is somewhat moot because this editor is now under a checkuser block for sockpuppetry. MER-C 12:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for snowball closure of a TfD to prevent large-scale 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.

---

Could someone close the following discussion at TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Braket? It's a request for the merger of two templates, and so far all the !votes have been "oppose". The reason it's desirable to close it sooner is that both templates are used for formatting and the TfD notices placed on them are making an unreadable mess of all tables that they appear in. There've been efforts to enclose the notice in <noinclude> tags to prevent that disruption but that has given rise to edit warring. I think a justified WP:SNOW closure would put an end to all that. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Doesn't this belong on WP:ANRFC instead? Pppery (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ooops. Well, my impression (gleamed from the text at the top of WP:AN, a page where WP:ANRFC is transcluded) was that that was the general place for the backlog of discussions to close, and not the place for issues that might have a tinge of urgency to them. Uanfala (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. Perfectly reasonable to bring your concern here when so many editors at the discussion are disturbed by reader facing disruption caused by this issue. Of course we should not be allowing in-house management of templates to destroy the way articles are presented. I guess the unanticipated issue here was that this template displays multiple times in the same article, so having the notice displaying for each instance is just plain silly. In that case, the solution is IAR, noinclude it if that solves it, then alter either the "rule" or the Tfx template to prevent recurrence. Edit warring to a state which damages reader content is suboptimal. A SNOW close would address the immediate issue, but we also need to ensure that it does not recur. --Begoon ^talk 13:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of ANRFC (too slow, making it essentially the same as not existing), but I think technically this noticeboard is for user problems. I actually read the title of this thread and the first half of the OP comment before realizing that there wasn't some problem with off-wiki canvassing by the losing side in some very aggressive conflict, or something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

As I say, WP:NOTBURO, and from the top of this page: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". I'd say bringing an issue affecting the display of many articles which cannot be fixed due to "rules"-bound edit warring is covered by that. I thank the OP for bringing it here and looking after our readers. --Begoon ^talk 16:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Angle bracket has been protected with the rationale "Highly visible template", but paradoxically this has set in stone the version without the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, precisely the one that was causing this disruption (and the protecting admin appears to have gone offline). can't we change back to the non-disruptive version? At least, it appears that the TfD notice has been made smaller, so now we aren't seeing the large-scale mess we used to. But still there is a mess [202]. Now aside from this particular case, I'm proposing a change in the TfD listing instructions that should hopefully reduce the occurrence of similar problems in future. Uanfala (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Can disregard, should be fixed now. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy. --Begoon ^talk 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This TfD has now been closed. Pppery (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Antisemitism by User:2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74

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

---

This editor has been making grossly antisemitic comments on talk pages such as this, this and this. The nature of the comments is such that I think an immediate block would be in order. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Copied from talk page.- MrX 16:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

IP 31.52.4.146 - page moves and personal attacks

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

---

• 31.52.4.146 (talk · contribs)

This IP has had, to put it bluntly, a shocking history of attempting to do page moves via WP:RM. In short, they are poorly thought out, offer no rationale for the move and as far as I know, every single one of them has been shot down with snow closes. Here's a taster:

• Gods of Egypt
• Ghostbusters
• Rat race
• Source code
• The Matrix
• Shrek
• Penguins of Madagascar
• IMDb

Those are just some of them. Warnings have been placed on their talkpage, which were then removed with this message. They've recently posted this and this on user talkpages. Serious WP:CIR issues IMO and I'd appreciate if someone could take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• • User needs to be blocked, IMHO. I have also seen all their disruptive and wasteful moves. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 17:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, User: ‎Bbb23...many warnings and long-term CIR indeed (though today is the first they have also gone off the INCIVIL deep end). DMacks (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 for looking into this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal attacks by Mogomaniac

The following discussion is closed. 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:Mogomaniac has recently enganged in repeated personal attacks against me and other editors (it's not always clear, who he is insulting) in edit summaries on SummerSlam (2016). Since his insults all happened in edit summaries, a list of his contributions will serve as evidence. (Or take a look at [[203]] to see how his PA-laden summaries compare to those of other editors.)

He has already been warned that disruptive behaviour and personal attacks in particular, may get him blocked on 01:01, 21 August 2016 by Sekyaw and has continued to insult others, [204].

Mogomaniac also has a history of disruptive behaviour in his eight months on Wikipedia: He was blocked for a week in May and just barely escaped another block in July as administrators considered him inactive by then [205].

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Mogomaniac also blanked and refactored the filing editor's report, whilst calling him a baby. Which goes, perhaps, someway towards demonstrating its validity... _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Alparslan Kuytul

The following discussion is closed. 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 article was recently deleted after this AfD. It's been re-created, so I tagged it for G4. The tag was removed without comment, so I tagged it again, and again, and again. It's been de-tagged for the umpteenth time and I'm now bored of playing revert-wars with this bloke's Turkish fan club. Could a sysop please kindly delete and salt?—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted as G4. It's now on my watchlist and should it be recreated again without dealing with the reasons for deletion it can be salted. --Michig (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Serb1914

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

---

He is topic banned from all edits relating to the balkans, and has edited Serbian related articles, which is a balkan country. This is in clear violation of his topic ban, please block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year (again) as a result of their topic ban breaches (as an Arbitration Enforcement sanction in accordance with the topic ban). Nick (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

SPI - Triumph of bureaucracy over effectiveness?

The following discussion is closed. 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 prolific sock, Filipz123, is now using single-edit IP-hopping to evade. It is time for range blocking - as has been requested repeatedly.

Bbb23 disagrees. He thinks that blanking sock reports [206] [207] (not even archiving them), refusing repeatedly to discuss this with the reporter "don't post this garbage on my Talk page" [208], and then threatening blocks to the reporter [209] is a better route. This is not acceptable behaviour from him.

There is a problem with this sock. Sro23 and myself have put a lot of time into reverting them for some months now. The great and the good at SPI though seem to see it as more important to avoid having to take action, than to protect the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe you're asking for 32,768 IPv4 address to be blocked - 24.114.0.0/17 These are the contribs since June 1. What rough % are from the sockmaster? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a narrow (/24) rangeblock in place, but the wider range that the socks have access to, 24.114.0.0/17, cannot be blocked without causing an unacceptable level of collateral damage. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

So put forward a better idea. Think of an /18, /19 or whatever. Or simply block 32k potential IPs (not all of which are even in use, very few of which have any interest in editing here). IMHO, this is damage to WP coming from an ISP and so it's time to make it the ISP's problem. Or email the ISP on WP-headed notepaper (or virtual equivalent). What is clearly no longer workable though is to just let this banned user keep at it. By all means discuss what various technical and practical means WP can take to prevent this problem - but refusing to discuss, blanking and threatening blocks on other editors is not something we permit. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Andy has misbehaved before on this case, attacking a clerk. This time, he went way beyond that. He filed a new SPI in which he set the case status to "admin", which only a clerk can do. I changed the status back to open. Although I already knew the answer (see DoRD above), I checked again the range Andy wanted blocked, and it simply wouldn't work. I was going to post that finding when I realized the report Andy had filed was also malformed. So I simply reverted it with a note in my edit summary that the range wasn't feasible. Andy then posted to my Talk page accusing me of "protecting" the sockmaster. That's an outrageous accusation, so I reverted him (as he shows above). Mike V had already archived the case, and Andy reverted Mike so that his malformed report was restored. I reverted Andy and posted a warning to his Talk page. The warning still stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I requested another admin to take a look at this SPI because there is a persistent problem with you, and Vanjagenie, rejecting obvious sock reports. You are not doing your job as an SPI clerk. If it is beyond you, then step down. But DO NOT threaten blocks on the other editors who are doing the unthanked gruntwork of keeping the banned editor's POV out. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Accusing Bbb23 of supporting a sockmaster is indeed outrageous. Why can't we use an edit filter for this IP range? Katie^talk 19:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blanking an SPI report without any action, not even archiving it, and then threatening the reporting editor with a block is supporting the sockmaster. It may not be deliberate, it would indeed be outrageous to suggest that they have some sort of shared agenda, but the end result of Bbb23's actions are indeed to act in support of that sockmaster, against the encyclopedia at large. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• [210] This evidence provided by Andy suggests that there is an issue on the part of Andy and not Bbb23. There's no justification to think Bbb23 is colluding with a troll reviewing all of the evidence. If there's anything to discuss here I think it's whether or not to give Andy a temporary block so they can cool off a little. There behavoir is showing an escalating pattern.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Due to the escalating disruptive behavior and not solely to cool them down, if that wasn't clear.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, a WP:COOLDOWN block! Circle the wagons everyone, the admin clique is under attack! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• It's pretty clear that Andy does not know how SPI or IP ranges work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• SPI doesn't work, that's the problem. And I've been calculating IP address masks for so long I still think of them as classes, not CIDR. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• So you know if a /17 is needed then a /18 or /19 will leak like a sieve. Look, no one likes socks. But unless you change policy to ignore collateral damage or convince the WMF to take a more active role we are limited to following current guidelines. No sense blaming the SPI admins and clerks for that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Andy, accusing an admin of supporting a sockmaster just because you disagree with his decision on whether to apply a range block is way over the top. You need to read Law of holes before repeating your accusation, and in my opinion you should be given a brief (12 or 24 hour) NPA block if you do it again. An apology would be a really good idea right about now. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit filter

• Andy really needs to calm down here. Believe me, I highly sympathise as regards dealing with LTAs – I have been one of the admins most involved in fighting the Nsmutte troll since March. As it happens there is an edit filter already in place to stop IPs from a couple of /20s from making "nationality inventions" edits. Pinging its creator, MusikAnimal, to inquire about widening the range. BethNaught (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Cassianto to be banned from making more than two comments on discussions about infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. 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. Over at Talk:Noël Coward, there's an RfC going on about infoboxes, and whilst I greatly appreciate Cassianto's dedication in creating a featured article, upon reading through other users' comments to decide and shape my own comment about infoboxes (I haven't previously taken part in RfCs about adding infoboxes to articles before), I feel that his or her comments step well over the line of what can be considered to be civil, and whilst it is an essay, Cassianto does appear to be severely bludgeoning the process and suggesting ownership of the article in some comments, replying to almost everyone in favour of adding an infobox. His/her behaviour is not limited to this particular discussion about adding an infobox, but rather it appears that the editor has an inability to keep a cool head in any discussion about infoboxes- see this prior ANI thread about him by Richard Arthur Norton which provides diffs of his behaviour in other discussions. In this particular example, he/she writes, "It's a sheer fucking travesty that this article is now about to be bastardised by the "public"' (diff), calls User:LaughingVulcan an "idiot, immature, offensive, and down-right moronic" (diff) and tells User:Alansohn to quit his bullshit snark (diff (also showing his previous even more rude message)), as well as not assuming good faith and attacking User:Gerda Arendt (in one of their more funny insults, accusing her of speaking in Pidgin English (diff)), User:GraemeLeggett (accusing him of "simply following the rest of the sheep" (diff) before reverting without apology), User:Aircorn, User:A D Monroe III and User:Mr Ernie- in short, everyone not sharing his view.

More worryingly, this is no unique behaviour either; the editor has been blocked multiple times for their personal attacks, and has been asked to stop their behaviour plenty of times on the Noel Coward talk page , and on ANI (on the 16th August, to which he has continued posting), and in a slightly more bizarre location, Jimbo Wales' talk page, and whilst I understand that Jimbo is not god and his words are not sacred, the man himself has said that Cassianto establishing "fuck off" as "a somehow proper way to deal with a problem" is unacceptable, and he has also had his rollback privileges removed after none other than a dispute about infoboxes (evidence).

Whilst I could add yet more evidence of Cassianto being unable to keep their cool in anything related to infoboxes (just search in ANI), or the group of editors he is in that seems to defend articles together (linky to ANI reported closed early due to unwittingly socking editor), Cassianto's content contributions are second to none, and I feel that it would a waste of our time to discuss that (indeed, I've already spent the best part of an hour and a half writing this up!) when we could be working on improving Wikipedia. I therefore, heeding the advice of User:Ritchie333, open this ANI thread with a simple !vote proposal to the community: should Cassianto be limited to two comments in discussions about infoboxes? (broadly construed, but if anyone wants to suggest anything more specific than "infoboxes", I am of course open to suggestions), in an attempt to avoid this thread turning into another ANI thread where nothing gets done; I have also proposed a rough outline for voting to go below.

Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

note: original question was should Cassianto be topic banned from discussing infoboxes?, following feedback, it has been changed. pinging @Montanabw:. Also pinging @Ritchie333: in case.

Should Cassianto be limited to two comments in discussions about infoboxes?

Support

Oppose

• Oppose topic ban on a single individual. They don't work to de-escalate the intensity of the debate, they just discourage good editors with strong views, and all they do is remove one participant from the discussion, with no one else's mind changed in the least -- in fact, often the opposite -- the remaining combatants just dig in harder. Restrictions related to civility, limits on how many comments any one person can make in a discussion, and maybe a 1 or 2 RR restriction, etc., are more effective, in part because they involve everyone. The infobox wars are probably never going to be resolved any time soon, any softening of position is slow and incremental at best, and all that really is needed is to insist that everyone ratchet down the personal attacks and the personalizing of debate. Perhaps we should do like the U.S. Congress and insist that we all address one another as "the honorable editor..." Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose in the interests of fairness. Although he's probably better known for removing them, Cassianto recently added an infobox on Kelly's of Cornwall after he concluded the article was big enough for one to be useful, so it's not all one-sided. And there have been editors on the other side who aren't being put up for a topic ban, which I think is unfair on Cass. As I said in another thread, possibly a general 1RR sanction on infoboxes (which, incidentally is what I personally subscribe to) is the answer to all of this - and also, of all the work you could do to improve an article, the infobox is pretty low down in the list of priorities. There are plenty of articles with nicely formatted infoboxes that are not very good, and having an infobox is even a cliched argument at AfD to the extent it's listed as an argument to avoid. Something to mull over, methinks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose IMO this is an attempt to game the system. Get those who oppose infoboxes banned from discussing them and the conversation becomes very one sided. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ritchie and Marnette. I would actually suggest a WP:Boomerang here... The problem lies with the people who systematically target articles by a small group of editors. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, haven't ever commented on RfCs related to infoboxes, this was my first. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you lack an insight into the situation and are certainly not in a place to be proposing bans on Cassianto if you're not familiar with the full picture. I suggest a speedy closure here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I do feel sorry for editors who step into the hornet's nest of the infobox wars without knowing what they are getting into but as Gerda says below this has been going on for more than ten years and as Ritchie said when he closed the last AN/I about this very same thing only a couple of days ago[211], this is really a matter for AE or maybe ArbCom (again). There are a number of editors in this long running feud that are not blameless, singling out Cassianto would be very unfair.Smeat75 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most of the comments made have either been pointing out to people that they need to make a comment based on policies or guidelines (most have not), or that they need to address the point about the IB on that particular article (most are general ILIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT and the last Arbcom case specifically stated people should not generalise), or that their comments are (bluntly) nonsense (which they are – there is a lot of knee-jerk dross in those comments from people who are not engaging brains before showing us the levels of their expertise). There has also been a bit of baiting going on, which hasn't helped matters. – SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Limiting one person to two comments isn't justifiable. Cassianto seems to be questioning the justification of including an infobox there. Their behavior doesn't seem all to different from that of Schrocat and others there. They aren't targeting every yes vote either, they are focused on specific types of universal inclusion arguments and not single purpose justifications of why the infobox should exist in the Coward article. You have failed to present a justification for limiting only them to 2 comments. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Because the nightmare of "to box or not infobox" never ends. Articles have been hit multiple times by the "infobox everything" factions with the question popping up again and again. Those who actively edit the articles are accused of ownership by the pro-infobox crowd, but fail to see their insistence of "here's the infobox and shut up" is ALSO a form of ownership. The infobox question never goes away-it follows an editor even to their talk page. This debate seems to me to be the largest waste of time, disruption and creator of ill-will among editors in all of WP. If limits like this are to be imposed on Cassianto, let's make it for all those commenting-pro or con. We hope (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• When I entered my "yes" to the discussion, I smilingly waited for the inevitable reply ;) - I think a topic ban would be too hard, and would rob the topic of most of its war-flavour, - remember that the "infoboxes wars" are a legend dating back to 2005. - I was restricted by arbcom to two comments max in a given discussion, - that might suffice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

What we really need is a ban from people trying to force infoboxes on articles they haven't contributed to. Not you, or Cassianto, but to restrict anybody from discussing them once an article has gone through FA and an infobox or lack of one has been agreed. Then issue blocks on the people who repeatedly offend.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to offer their opinion on any article. That's the point of Wikipedia. Some of our readers really like them, so why not just have them on every article? There is simply no counter argument that trumps what the readers prefer. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• That misses the point entirely of this thread (and the general conversation about IBs too) – SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We'd better not restrict infobox discussions to only infobox-warriors. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've only very recently encountered User:Cassianto, and I must say I am bewildered. The user readily responds with severe comments crossing AGF and NPA, and yet seems very thinned-skin whenever anyone responds negatively to these, quickly escalating the attacks. Given the user seemed experienced, I began to wonder if this was a troll-like tactic to get people blocked or banned. I was pretty sure that if I were thinned-skinned, one or both of us would be blocked already, and I'm worried this user may have already cost us some other less-experienced yet promising editors. But now, pinged here, I now find that this user has both a long history of these sorts of issues, and yet alsolong history of solid contributions. I do not understand how an editor can be alternately so constructive and destructive. I barely remember the infobox wars; I thought they were long gone by now. Is it really still something people need to immediately resort to battleground tactics over? I don't know if some restriction on infoboxes is the answer, but something should be done; it's damaging WP. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• "a troll-like tactic": thank you for proving my above point that there has been some tendentious baiting going on, posing as someone's 'thoughts'. As to "it's damaging WP", that's a big claim to make: I presume you can provide proof....? – SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Spartaz says he's retired, but he isn't

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

---

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

At least one other editor and I have asked Spartaz to change or remove the "retired" banner from the top of his user talk page since, by evidence, he has returned to editing -- with 20 or more edits to multiple pages so far this month. His response has been to delete the messages.

Will somebody please try to talk some sense to Spartaz or just change his page. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't made a mainspace edit since March, and his last 50 edits in all namespaces combined go back to early April. He looks pretty much the textbook example of a retired editor to me; someone occasionally poking their head in to answer a question, or make a passing comment on something that interests them, does not make them unretired. ‑ Iridescent 23:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to read the template and its documentation. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think that policing someone's userpage because you disagree with their definition of "retired" is a valid use of ANI time, nor do I think you editing their page to remove the box or add a link to this discussion is appropriate. Between that and these two edits that verge on harassing them, I'm more concerned about your behavior than theirs. --PresN 23:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry you don't know how to read a page's history. I left a message for Spartaz, I didn't remove a template from his page. And if you think your version of the Centralized discussion template was appropriate, your head is probably in need of a rectal extraction. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:RogerGLewis editwarring against consensus, 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.

---

Help, please. To summarise (I can provide more detail on request): User:RogerGLewis added a set of endorsements for David Malone’s candidacy to Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016.[212][213] None of the endorsers added have Wikipedia articles. I deleted them as not being notable, as per common practice on similar articles and WP:CSC.[214]

RogerGLewis reverted.[215] We discussed on Talk page, during which RogerGLewis revealed some sort of direct collaboration with the Malone campaign ("I am awaiting a further list from David Malone"; later also "I have spoken to David Malone 3 times since the end of June I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process").[216][217]

I sought further clarification, pointed him to WP:COI[218] and then went to WP:COIN (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election.2C_2016; plus see User_talk:RogerGLewis#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion). RogerGLewis denies having a COI.

At WP:COIN, User:Only in death supported excluding non-notable endorsements.[219] At the Talk page, User:Brianhe supported excluding non-notable endorsements.[220]

Brianhe closed the COIN discussion. Feeling there were unresolved issues, I asked Brianhe to re-open it and he did. A couple of days on, no-one else has since inputted on the COI question. It seems to me RogerGLewis has had a small involvement in a formal campaign and thus a small COI, but I’m happy for others to rule on that and am more concerned about his disruptive edits generally.

On the Talk page, I discussed policy and practice around what endorsements to include.[221][222] I put to RogerGLewis that additional people had weighed in and they supported excluding non-notable endorsements. I re-removed the endorsements.[223] RogerGLewis re-added them.[224] Cycle then repeated over some days.[225][226]

[227][228]

RogerGLewis described approaching other people off-wiki for input;[229][230] I brought WP:CANVASS to his attention. He does not appear to be following its advice.

RogerGLewis has struggled with WP:AGF at times. After I raised COI concerns, he sought to link me to the rival Lucas/Bartley candidacy.[231] He suggested an IP editor might be part of a conspiracy.[232] He cries vandalism.[233] He talks of “natural justice” being denied,[234] etc. etc.

RogerGLewis has made other edits to the article. These have had some useful content, although notions of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS seem lost on him.[235] I’m afraid many of his edits are lengthy and simply hard to follow. [236][237]

Edit-warring against consensus. Difficulties with other policies and guidance. WP:OWN behaviour. Other examples available. Can an administrator please input. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I look forward to adressing these concerns with appropriate wikipedians. The characterisations made by Bondegezou are simply unsubstanciated and claims of disruptive or edit warring are clearly false. The Talk page entries discussing the conventions which are described regarding notability I have found to be contrary to Wikipedia best practice. I have set out the nature of the inductuive reasoning inherent in the approach for which Bondegezou claims consensus and there is no consensus as I have enumerated quite clearly. Inductive logic is not the most easily precised of concepts although I felt my approach setting out the relevant wikipedia policy related to it was actually pretty clear. Contrary to the claim that "notions of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS seem lost on him".[238] are not bourne out by my engagement with the arguments. I await further advice from other wikipedians. Thank you. RogerGLewis (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The OP's post here is not very short. However, it pales in comparison, both in length and coherence, to the walls of text Roger has posted at the article Talk page. Here are a few examples of parts of those walls:

• I am starting a new talk section on this matter and hope other editors will contribute to the question, preferably editors who are interested in STV AV voting and Flat structured organisational and collective Cooperative participative leadership models. I.e Matrifocal and not Patriarchal Hierarchical stuctures and institutions in political economy.
• Ontology and language[edit] Hirsch interprets Hilary Putnam as asserting that different concepts of "the existence of something" can be correct.
• Causation between actual entities is essential to their actuality. Consequently, for Whitehead, each actual entity has its distinct and definite extension in physical Minkowski space, and so is uniquely identifiable. A description in Minkowski space supports descriptions in time and space for particular observers. It is part of the aim of the philosophy of such an ontology as Whitehead's that the actual entities should be all alike, qua actual entities; they should all satisfy a single definite set of well stated ontological criteria of actuality.

I might add that there is a good deal of disruption going on at the article, and although it involves both editors, at first glance, the more disruptive editor is probably Roger.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 (talk Hello thank you for looking at the article. I appreciate that there is quite a lot of ground covered in the discussion by my posts. This is because there are several quite difficult concepts to get across as to why the Notability of Politicians in the green party and what constitutes evidence of such notability is quite different to other political parties. Largely this is because The Green Party uses STV AV voting and in this election is fielding large numbers of candidates. The other reason is related to the FPTP voting system for UK elections which means the Green Party Has only one MP this issue also effects UKIP and the LIB Dems as well. MP´s generally have a Wikipedia Article and notability for all endorsements is satisfied as per the convention that is at issue in the Article in question, The Labour Party election has a seperate article for Endorsements and the Conservative leadership page is very heavy on the list front. Whilst the UKIP page is not troubled by very long lists , the Current position on the GP Leaderhip 2016 article does not seem over done in my view and does work well following the wikipedia guidance to have a lead before the list and after the title. The green Party does have a good number of county councillors and other appointed party officials far fewer of these people have a wikipedia article and this is what I have been distinguishing in the Argument for applying the Tests Wikipedia applies to questions of notability in lists. It is really only the Endorsements I think that have been presenting a dispute indeed Bondegezou fairly concedes that some of my edits have been quite helpful. On Canvassing I think the charge is not founded, although I have read the guidance in detail now and will act strictly within the guidelines. My Last post regarding Machine learning Code to assist with notability questions and source relevance is a serious invitation to help the project and colaborate with other wikipedeans to develop such tools. If it is the wrong place to make such suggestions in the talk page to that article I would be grateful for some guidance as to where I should post it. Linguists here will apppreciate the difficulty in being asked to prove a negative, it does take more explication. RogerGLewis (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

RogerGLewis's main argument as to why he feels he is not edit-warring against a consensus is that he's emailed his friend who will definitely support him when he's back from holiday.

I am not kidding. That's what he's said: [239]

User:Bbb23, sorry I wasn't briefer! Trying to give a fair and comprehensive description. Bondegezou (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou would you care to comment on whether you are a member of a political party , and have you ever stood for election for any political party WP:COI. would it be proper to edit on relevant party matters and further to participate in the article of a rival party if you had indeed sought public office for and are a current or former member of a rival political party? Please draw any potential conflict of interest to the appropriate authorities. I am happy to leave this question here, thank you. 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and have in the past stood for election at a local level, although I never came close to winning. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone sort out this mess - appears to be copy and paste from elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bondegezou how would you like to proceed with the complaint I wish to make regarding a clear conflict of interest? Bbb23 (talk RogerGLewis (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I have reviewed WP:COIPOLITICAL. I see no problem. Bondegezou (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I note RogerGLewis is now accusing me of sock-puppetry with no evidence being presented.[240] I have never sock'ed. Bondegezou (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Notice of possible and alledged COI . I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and have in the past stood for election at a local level, although I never came close to winning. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou how would you like to proceed with the complaint I wish to make regarding a clear conflict of interest? edit warring or sock puppetry WP:COI Bbb23 (talk talk RogerGLewis (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I see no problem under WP:COIPOLITICAL. I've never sock'ed. Sock-puppetry is a serious allegation: what evidence are you presenting? This all appears to be a ploy to distract from the fact that you admit to having been in regular contact with David Malone over his candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou (talk Your activity on the UKIP entry and this entry alone is highly questionable. This is not a ploy I am happy to continue to answer your allegations that is on going. This is a seperate matter and it is not for me to act as inquisitor. Other editors who have already commented could perhaps see what they think. On evidence here is the result of the 2010 election you stood as a candidate for the Lib Dems in this comment from you in 2006 seems to suggest you have been operating under a double standard since then. I expect inquiry into your editing activity in 2010 will be of some interest to others. Why are half the people working on this page also Doctor Who fans? Bondegezou 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Because many of those editing here are Liberal Democrats (contributing their expertise while trying to retain a NPOV, of course), and geeky LibDems tend, for some reason, also to be Doctor Who fans. --Whouk (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure what to make of that above comment, being a Lib Dem supporter myself. (Jamandell (d69) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)) Guilty as charged =) LibDem and Doctor Who fan. Also quite a fan of following boundary commission decisions...er.... doktorb | words 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC) I can't say how common this is, but I definitely fit the description of a 'geeky LibDem Doctor Who fan' :). Maybe it's to do with the sci-fi-like hope that the party will be Government? -UK-Logician-2006 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Well for balance I'm a Doctor Who fan but most definitely not a supporter of the Lib Dems! Timrollpickering 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC) I think this is ample evidence of gross hypocrisy, how it is dealt with is a matter for others, I am of course happy for you to turn yourself in as it were But with regard to our own dispute on this article your conflict is quite clear and you have not addressed the facts yet again but resorted to ad hominem with no evidence. At this point I think I am justified in claiming that you have acted in bad faith and cetainly not on good faith.08:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) I refer you to the answer I gave previously. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou (talk Very well, I will initiate the formal procedures and prepare the full case against you, Meanwhile I trust you will refrain from Intervening on this or any other UKIP or Green Party Article until the formal process is completed. I will also advise the Green Party whose interests have possibly been damaged by your actions as have the tenets of electroal law. RogerGLewis (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)08:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

@RogerGLewis: Please be aware of our policy on legal threats -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

samtar ^{talk or stalk} Hello again just to be sure I have not made a threat of Legal action and have no intention to the case I mention is one regarding showing the on wikipedia evidence in the usual consensus channels. I do however think that the Green PArty and UKIP will take a very dim view of an active Lib Dem member and formner candidate making allegations of COI and NPOV etc whilst clearly suffering the mallady that they complain of themselves. I hoe that clears things up. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to try and clear up who's said what when, please note that chunks of the above credited to me, User:Timrollpickering, User:Doktorbuk, User:UK-Logician-2006 etc. have been cut and paste here by RogerGLewis from other Talk pages and were not posted by me here. Some of the material comes from 10 years ago. Bondegezou (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just to point out (since I have been pinged rather a lot the last few days over this issue) my only comments was that a)when making these lists of 'endorsements' it is common to only include notable people - otherwise you end up with huge lists of 'Associate drainage supervisor Dobbs endorses' etc. B. That the COI only really comes into it if the person with a link to the candidate is trying to overly promote their candidate in the face of the above. 'Pad the resume' so to speak. When the first issues came up, I was willing to extend AGF that RogerGLewis was just unaware of how wikipedia does things. After the extended kerfuffle this has become, I am now leaning heavily towards the latter COI-promotion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This entire thread is incredibly messy, and doesn't lend itself to be easily understood - the above copy/pastes could have just been linked diffs -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have hatted what appears to be a copy and paste and done some formatting. It should read easier now. If someone wants to sort out the hatted mess, feel free. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

samtar Bondegezou (talk This thread is a result of editing in bad faith by Bondegezou How can an active member and former candidate for the Lib Dems claim a NPOV on Green Party and UKIP matters. I am happy to move that matter to a fresh new page and to precis all of the evidence I have presented, if that would help. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:COIPOLITICAL, being a member of a political party is not in itself considered a conflict of interest. Involvement in a specific campaign may be considered a conflict of interest. I quote, "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents." You yourself have described working with David Malone, one of the candidates, on his social media campaigning. All editors must of course follow WP:NPOV. Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing non-neutrally and editing with a COI are not quite the same thing. It is possible to edit neutrally with a COI and also to edit non-neutrally when you have no COI. You (RogerGLewis) appear to not be doing the former. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

talk I have no interest in the outcome of the Green Party election I have also made most of my contributions on the other candidates positions and have included more edits for those candidates than for David Malone. I am not a memebr of a campaign or a member of Staff for anyone I am a retired gentleman who lives in Sweden that spends my time Doing monetary reform activism. The evidence is simply not there to make the sweeping generalisations and half truths which you state. I accept that they are your opinion but they are not based on the facts. Regarding the substantive issues regarding noteability I have quoted chapter and verse regarding that and the Title with Lead solution seems to have worked well without a list of every Tom Dick and harry resulting. Regarding Bondegezou (talkand his clear non neutral point of view and COI I have just collected the Edit history data for The relavant articles and will present the data and inferences that I make from it In the appropriate locationwhen I complete my analysis RogerGLewis (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Diffs where RogerGLewis describes contact with David Malone's campaign: [241], [242], [243]. These do not describe a major role in the campaign, but I think they're prima facie evidence of some connection and why I raised a COI concern. I note also that RogerGLewis has not edited any other articles than Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016 and spillover since 2012. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talkIs this areas for the COI discussion as you alledge against me or is the content and consensus matter also to be discussed ? RogerGLewis (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This is really an overblown issue though. I have opened a question at the relevant talk page for the article to deal with it. It is a content dispute over inserting lists of non-notable people into an article. Leaving aside motivations, this is a minor thing that is dealt with routinely every day. Wikipedia tends to do it in a similar way each time, because we have list guidelines that are followed. But they are guidelines, if consensus at the article talkpage is to ignore the guidelines and add every tom dick and harry who has said 'I like X candidate' so be it. But it really is a yes/no question that does not need to be dragged out like this by anyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

RogerGLewis shows no sign of respecting any consensus. I've tried standard WP:dispute resolution and RogerGLewis just reverts to his version and posts a page-long tract about Kropotkin on the Talk page. If others want to try, good luck! But I think administrator input is needed to, er, more strongly encourage behaviour change. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Moving forwards

From a cursory read of the above, and the fact this is dragging out a little without any real resolutions, I'd like to propose a gentle caution for both editors regarding editing with a conflict of interest, provide a strong suggestion to read through WP:COI and WP:NPOV thoroughly and ask that they cease editing the respective articles directly for the time being. I would reccomend the editors make use of edit requests or suggesting changes and gaining concensus before making the edit themselves. In the future, issues like this may be better served at the conflict of interest noticeboard -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to stay away from the Green Party leadership article if the community feels that is best.

I tried at COIN, but got little response! I think RogerGLewis's walls of text put people off...

I do wish to dispute having any COI myself. I am a member of a political party. I have been editing political articles for years without problems. I know many other members of the editing community on those articles are also members of political parties or supporters of particular political parties, and they also edit without problems. WP:COIPOLITICAL, as I understand it, allows all this -- as long, of course, as everyone respects WP:NPOV. To start saying members of political parties have COIs is to re-write WP:COI and would decimate the editing community on those articles. Bondegezou (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't see that you have a conflict of interest. Nor do I see that Roger has an obvious conflict. Putting aside Roger's walls of text, which are indeed off-putting at a minimum, there are two problems with the article. First and foremost, the issue of who should be listed as an endorser should be resolved. At this point, I don't see that anyone agrees with Roger. Second, regardless of the endorsement issue, neither editor should be edit-warring at the article. Reverting non-notable endorsements in either direction is not an exemption to edit-warring. I reserve the right to block editors or lock the article if there is sufficient disruption to it to warrant it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. I have been avoiding editing the article itself while the matter is addressed here, so I've left the article as is since Tuesday evening, various problems included. RogerGLewis has added a bunch more material (some useful, some not, in my estimation). I concur on the question of removing non-notable endorsements. RogerGLewis remains opposed. If someone would like to try removing them from the article, we'll see what he does next. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Number 57.made some helpful suggestions regarding formatting and keeping points shorter, I will edit dowm my own walls of text,I apologise to User talk:Bondegezou for neglecting this in my rookie enthusiasm to engage in the argumentation of wikipedia policy. There is a new section in the talkpage now which I also thank Bondegezou for, hopefully this will result in a consensus in the community, with people not being put off by the low signal to high noise ratio, optimistically.RogerGLewis (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not moving forwards

RogerGLewis has made some positive noises, tried to understand Wikipedia processes better and withdrawn prior ad hominems. I have engaged with this. Yet he still point blank refuses to accept the ever-stronger[244][245] consensus against him, declares the process inadequate and filibusters to keep his version in place, again[246] and again[247] and again.[248] Looks like a textbook example of what WP:CONSENSUS describes as tendentious editing. Playing nice (at least, nicer), but never actually accepting anyone else's view. Any process that produces an answer that he doesn't like isn't good enough and he keeps playing for more time.

Oh, guess what? If the article is unchanged for an additional week, as he proposes, the leadership election will be over and all the padding of extra endorsements for certain candidates will have done its job.

Where next? User:Bbb23 or others, is it OK if I or someone enact the consensus edit and remove non-notable endorsements? Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Roger's contention that a week is mandated. This is not an RfC per se. However, the "vote" has only been in existence (formally) for one day, and thus far there are three supporters and no opposers. If someone else thinks that's enough, great, but I don't think you should be the one to implement a consensus given your involvement. Nor will I do it for other reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

For others following, the relevant "vote" is at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2016#Should_the_.27endorsements.27_list_contain_only_notable_endorsements.3F. Additional input very welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We appear to have reached a resolution: see Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2016#Should_the_.27endorsements.27_list_contain_only_notable_endorsements.3F. There was further support for deleting non-notable endorsements. User:RogerGLewis then accepted the change being made and himself removed the non-notable endorsements for David Malone's candidacy. He still feels the change is wrong and further discussion continues on the Talk page to explore the matter, with all participants open to the possibility that consensus may change. Thanks to all for their input. I suggest the discussion here is closed (perhaps after a short time should anyone wish to make closing remarks?). Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to say thankyou all for an engaging discussion and steep learning curve. I will make contribution hopefully tot his article and others and hope to beable to gain a consensus to my arguments which I will of course make more concisely over the coming months. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE behavior by BatmobileFire (talk · contribs)

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

---

I first ran into BatmobileFire (talk · contribs) on August 2 when I noticed their deproding of Bratz Ponyz 2. I pinged them in a discussion, asking why they did so and if they have any intention of improving the article. Their reply: Well as You can see from *cough* *cough* reading the page it says I dont gotta post a reason when I delete that tag". While they were certainly in their right, I did press on, also asking why they actually wrote "*cough* *cough*". Their reply was "You admit theres no need; so why the fuss". Two days later, the article was redirected to Bratz#Video games. I went trough their edits and looked at their talk page. They received two minor warnings before. For making an unconstructive edit, they received a warning in March, which was issued by @Dcirovic. BatmobileFire replied at Dcirovic's talk page, also saying "You need to stop drinking liquor". On May 26, they asked about a new meme, using a talk page as a forum. @McGeddon then issued a warning. They again replied at the other's talk page, which for some reason started out with "I didnt really read your whole post. I dont like to read too much. I also dont have faith." Despite the warning, they asked another meme-related question, about finding a particular meme. Two days later a follow-up message: "I discovered its from a book with a title doodoo". All rather odd behavior.

A couple of days later, I checked up on BatmobileFire and noticed that they received a message by @GamerPro64 on August 16, about making unnecessary threads for requested articles. Their reply: "Whos Wendy . Sure ." Another strange remark, so I asked a question about why they're doing that. I then received a message on my talk page, which read "Hello after... how many days . Im not counting past four . What do you have to say for yourself ." Not sure what they were referring to, I asked again. In the meantime I also reverted their message on the chicken as food talk page, for which I did issued another warning. While I did not get an answer about what I should say for myself, I was asked to define the word "discussion". I pinged @Czar for advice, if this was a case of WP:NOTHERE. Czar also issued a warning. Their reply? "Truly a great movie I think; Ill watch it for clipping up Wikipedia better". I also received another message:

Your page says that You are "late" . Id not venture to guess at what that means; if youve any ideas it may help you and your subconscious to think it over; on the other hand you possibly obtain no interest in the psychologies; much the way people obtain no interest in looking at the moon; although who could ignore it when its so close; and by the way if youve any interest in astronomy the moon is very close to my live location of New Jersey today.

Very strange, because my user page doesn't say I am "late", and the only occurence of the word "late" on my talk page was in a reply to another user. That was my last interaction with BatmobileFire. After that, they started a discussion on Talk:English_language#Clarity, which borders on WP:FORUM. What's again very odd behaviour, is that they added two dashes for no reason whatsoever. They've requested the creation of a couple articles: "Please begin a page for I Like Myself the childrens book written for females .", "Please begin a page for The Gardener the childrens book written for females .", and "Please begin a page for My Name Is Not Isabella the childrens book written for females ." They've edited their talk page a couple of times, which now starts off with:

I a-m the walru-s! Is it better to write details of myself at my user page or at my talk page ? In any event Im user BatmobileFire and my real name like the Batmans is a closely guarded secret meaning: no one cares a;tall . I hail from the land of New Jersey where everything is honey and... more honey . Its bad for a girl to go shopping like nah . My family background is quite more interesting: Ive got German although I believe the story of my familys leave from Germany cannotve been so honorable and I even know when my familys flight occurred which occurred during the nine hundreds CE; Ive got Canadian; Ive got Swedish; Ive got Israeli; Ive got Vietnamese. By the way weather in New Jersey is absolutely awful during summer; so hot youd want to get a house in Canada so you can fly there during the dreadfully hot months; can Yall afford that .

Their last edit, as of right now, was a message on Czar's talk page:

Friendly greetings; fair greetings; fond greetings from a man on the web to You . I noticed your talk page redirects to your user talk page; which you may have put in unintentionally; in that case youd like to fix things up; and you should think it awfully nice of me to tell you what ails you according to every rule of etiquette; or which your e-friends going to your page may consider an irrelevancy so to speak; probably the word is a redundancy .

If these edits do not speak for themselves: I think it's clear that BatmobileFire is WP:NOTHERE to help Wikipedia. They respond infrequently to messages, and if they do, they are hard to understand and are uncivil ("I didnt read your whole post", "Stop drinking liquor"). They've used talk pages several times as forums: a meme could've been found using Google. Instead of trying to create an article, they've requested the creation of articles without any mention of why they should be created. The intentional use of "*cough cough*", "Whos Wendy" and adding dashes for no reason makes me believe they think Wikipedia is one big joke. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, BatmobileFire! EEng 07:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I took longer than expected, but I guess I'm the editor Wikipedia deserves, not the one it needs right now. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you think should happen, Soetermans? fish&karate 10:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: "WP:NOTHERE" implies that Soetermans's opinion on the matter is that BatmobileFire should be indefinitely blocked by a sysop, C-BANned or S-BANned. That said, I have not read the 1000-word wall of text above, and have no history of interaction with either editor, so I have no opinion on the matter one way or another. I imagine almost every other volunteer on the site who isn't already WP:INVOLVED will look at this the same way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand that blocks are not used just to WP:PUNISH editors, but are used as a preventive measure. BatmobileFire has a single edit that is on an actual article (the one reverted by Dcirovic), they've used talk pages often as a forum and are not keen on communicating clearly, let alone in a civil manner. They haven't shown any change in their behavior, which is all WP:NOTHERE to me. So yes, I am in favor of a block. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

He has two. That's all I'm going to say. I don't have the patience to look at all his non-mainspace edits. Two mainspace edits is an incredibly small number, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• I actually read all of this and then went thru Batmobiles editing history. There are a few issues certainly, some of which are pointed out above. They have made few or no edits outside of talk space (not that this is an issue), though numerous comments by them did seem to be an attempt to improve the articles. My initial view is they are a new editor suffering from bitten new comer disease. A warning against there personal attacks and a polite recommendation that they seek mentorship (does anyone have the link?), the Teahouse, or some other form of newcomer assistance should be considered. They can always be blocked later if necessary.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This edit here: [249] is enough for me to say it's time to say they are WP:NOTHERE, block and leave it at that. This isn't a editor that has been bitten. (Update at 1:21 PM EDT) The user's been indef'd by Favonian. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:GaryFG8125

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

---

GaryFG8125 edits Irish political/politician articles, especially those relating to the Fine Gael party and its politicians. Here he admits to being a member of Fine Gael but despite requests to desist from editing FG/FG-related pages he continues to do so, without placing any sort of COI notice on his or any page. He almost completely refuses to engage on article talk pages and never uses edit summaries. He also continually edits while logged out, hopping through various IPs (the recent history of any of the articles edited by Gary will show two or three regularly used IPs, such as ‎83.70.53.247 and 83.70.54.150.

In addition to the above, Gary (Commons userpage) has lately started to upload a number of images to Commons which he is now adding to Fine Gael members' biography pages. Unfortunately, the images appear to have been culled from Irish newspapers, without permission, rather than having been taken by him. Examples:

• This image uploaded to Commons, used on the Leo Varadkar article here, has been taken from the Irish Independent.
• This image uploaded to Commons, used on the Alan Dukes article here, has been taken from RTÉ News.

Can something be done, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Another example:

• This image uploaded to Commons, used on the Government of the 32nd Dáil article here and replacing an image that had been verified as suitably licensed, has been taken from The Herald.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For info, GaryFG8125 has now been blocked for 3 days from Commons, and the copyright violations have been deleted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I've had some brief interactions with this editor in the past week or so and was peripherally aware of other areas this editor was active in previously. In myopinion this editor has had ample time to understand how this project works but after a year of editting has made no attempt to engage with other editors on reaching consensus. In recent times, edit-warred over Young Fine Gael and has now taken to editing while logged out. I would recommend a short block to remind this editor that there is no "right to edit" and that the proper course is to discuss to reach consensus. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, I've now seen his latest posting on his Talk page here. In my opinion, his casual insults and implied threats crystalise the nature of this editor and the need for a suitable block in order to assist his understanding of collegiate editing and consensus building. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• The Image issue is more of a commons issue, and it has been taken care of at commons by the looks of things. (3 day block and images deleted). Now the diff provided by HighKing does appear a little threatening and a bit of a Personal Attack.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate Reverts of Discussion Closure by User:SchroCat

In an attempt to resolve another issue at the ANI noticeboard, I took the action of closing a discussion that started several years ago and was recently active again and moving it to RfC using the principle of being bold. All the comments supported moving to RfC. User:SchroCat has reverted my closure twice now and threatened an ANI discussion. I believe my closure was valid and followed guidelines of WP:CLOSE. In good faith I notified all parties in the prior discussion of the move to an RfC, including SchroCat at their talk page. SchroCat did not bring issue of closure to me and simply reverted my closure with a threat in the edit summary. The actions are now disruptive and clearly in violation of how to contest closure per WP:CLOSE. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Notification Reverted Notification of this discussion was made here and reverted, FYI. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You are not the guardian of Wikipedia, nor are you an administrator or administrator. Your 'power' to close discussions is as equal as any other editors. My 'power' to re-open that is as equal as yours is to close. My revert was because you removed my comments, an extremely disruptive step to take. If you wish to close again, that is entirely up to you, but not with the rather tendentious removal of my valid comments. – SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop removing my comments. If you continue to edit war and remove the comments of another editor, your behaviour will face examination. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts: Revert 3 Revert 2 Revert 1 - I advise you to review WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as I have not asserted any power. I simply attempted to close the discussion and you added comments following that closure in the incorrect venue. To add your comments into the RfC is not my place and they did not belong in a closed discussion. I will not revert again as this is now a back and forth. I will allow the administrators to review this and proceed. Also, I have not removed any of your comments besides the ones placed after the closure. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Next time do not edit war and do not remove comments. At least you have clarified that you are not going to edit war further, although that is rather moot, as the thread was closed five minutes before you posted that. – SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The user has now closed the discussion again with my closure comments only after adding back their comments and yet another threat for ANI. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really see the point of closing an existing discussion just to start it again as an RFC. Why not just elevate the current one to an RFC? Obviously editors who have spent time debating the issue don't want to start the discussion again from scratch. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  I already commented in the new RfC, but have no problem with my comment in it being refactored into a merged RfC. It's not really important exactly where on the page the RfC is located. I may no speak for every RfC respondent, but I prefer "clean" RfCs that make reference (with links) to previous discussions, rather than burying an RfC in the middle of a discussion that has turned into a mire. The principle purpose of RfCs is to get a fresh set of eyes and minds on question, not for the same couple of parties who've been at each other's throats for a long time to brow-beat and lobby for "votes" for their "side". A clean RfC is usually a good step toward short-circuiting an ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND problem. I'm not going to wade into the interpersonal dispute above, other than to observe that three reverts documented by Dane2007, followed by a fourth, seems to be a WP:3RR problem. They're not even just within the same day, they barely span more than an hour and a half.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• If only it were true. Could you provide a diff of the fourth revert that you've claimed? – SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• 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. - From WP:3RR. Not sure that 3RR applies but definitely toeing the line. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  He did reverse his third revert so I'm not sure there is an issue here that requires admin attention. As an aside I'm not even sure your close is valid anyway: if you close a discussion you need to clearly indicate whether a consensus has been reached or not. If you don't feel it has then the close summary should clearly state "No consensus". As it stands you haven't actually closed the discussion, you've just put a box around it and started a new discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP:CLOSE and my closure appears to be correct according to that policy. The closure appropriately noted the status and provided a result indicating where the RfC is. Since the issue was not determined here, there was no need to call out "No consensus" as the status was stating it was closed to gain consensus. I could be wrong or misinterpreting that policy though. Can an admin clarify if I interpreted that right? -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A "close" determines the level of consensus achieved in a discussion and you have not actually done that. How do we know if an RFC is even needed if the previous discussion was not analyzed for any prevailing arguments? If I had closed that discussion I would have summarized the key arguments and explained why I thought consensus had or had not been achieved. I also wouldn't have started an RFC either, and I would have left it to the opposing parties to decide how they wanted to proceed based on the close. Betty Logan (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I did review the entire contents of the discussion. I determined based on the contents of the discussion as well as the original ANI that a closure and move to RfC was an appropriate and necessary action to get outside opinion and comments as the discussion was becoming disruptive and irrelevant due to accusations of WP:OWN among others.

In addition to formal closes that analyze the consensus of a discussion, discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive. - WP:CLOSE; Granted I am not an administrator and I was simply looking to be bold and move the ball along, there isn't an explicit restriction on a non-administrator closure for that discussion. I believe that all of my good faith actions today complied with WP:CLOSE and WP:RFC. I will drop the stick here regarding this closure action and await administrator comment. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you acknowledge I have not broken 3RR, despite the untrue accusation made by another editor. Yes, you were bold in your close, as you are allowed to be, but there was nothing to stop me reverting that close either, as I felt it was inappropriate. Why you felt the need to edit war is beyond me, but I am glad you have finally decided to drop the stick. All that is needed is for mcandlish to acknowledge his accusation of breaching 3RR was not an adequate reflection of the truth. Time to do something useful - which is never the case of anything brought to this particular peanut gallery. - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:143.159.18.55 mass "clean up" of others' comments on talk pages

See Special:Contributions/143.159.18.55. Per WP:TPO, The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Examples include [250], [251], [252]. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh really! Can I first request that you actually read my edit summaries - "fix template redirects, rv xs whitespace". And then can I ask you to actually check, and COMPARE the actual rendered differences between diffs.

For the record - I did NOT change or delete the comments of other editors or users, apart from any correction of indenting or similar minor format errors - which IS allowed under WP:TPO.

And if you do wish to complain about other users activities, perhaps you could consider getting your own house in order before criticising others. Your own edit summary wasn't exactly helpful, particularly when addressing "noob" IP editors!

You ought to first assume 'Good Faith', and then engage constructively with any user - BEFORE reporting them to administrators! Best regards. 143.159.18.55 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you mass changing project importance ratings? especially to go from "Top" importance to "Low". Are you working alongside these projects or are you arbitrarily changing their banners to suit your own measures of importance? also you've prevented the bots from archiving at least one talk page. Your very mild typo changes and spaces and apparently mild reformatting doesn't strike me as overly problematic (I struck my typo changes and spaces comment for two reasons, 1. No actual typo changes that I could see in terms of editors comments and 2. If there were, these are recommended against and should be stopped at an editors request). I think it's more the en-masse number of changes in a single edit that has caught the attention of another editor. Perhaps just accept the crude and unsightly format of comments that sometimes appear on talk pages and leave the headers as they are, its not an article and thus doesn't need to be subjected to MOS in such detail. Otherwise fixing links and those sorts of things, eh, it's not against any guidelines or policies that I know of, but, it's also not supported by any either. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC

Your claim	My response
Oh really! Can I first request that you actually read my edit summaries - "fix template redirects, rv xs whitespace".	Your edits are so extensive that it's difficult to verify that your edit summary is accurate. And no matter how you try to spin it, making extensive edits to others' comments looks suspicious and is highly likely to start disputes. Additionally, a WikiProject non-member changing the WikiProject assessments is also highly likely to start disputes.
And then can I ask you to actually check, and COMPARE the actual rendered differences between diffs.	Again, your edits are so extensive that it would take quite a bit of time and effort to do this for the volume of articles that you've modified. There is plenty of constructive work to do other than modify others' comments on talk pages and reprioritize WikiProject work to suit your personal taste.
For the record - I did NOT change or delete the comments of other editors or users, apart from any correction of indenting or similar minor format errors - which IS allowed under WP:TPO.	No reasonable person would interpret WP:TPO to allow such edits to dozens of articles with no end in sight. Even if it isn't to obscure vandalism, it's still highly likely to spark disputes and you really should not continue to do it.
And if you do wish to complain about other users activities, perhaps you could consider getting your own house in order before criticising others. Your own edit summary wasn't exactly helpful, particularly when addressing "noob" IP editors!	I think you would be alone in your complaint. "+ani" is something that 99.9% of editors would be able to figure out given the notice mentions "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Additionally, it wasn't a series of intricate modifications of others' comments on dozens of talk pages performed in a way that would take several minutes per article to verify hadn't changed their meaning.
You ought to first assume 'Good Faith', and then engage constructively with any user - BEFORE reporting them to administrators!	Not if it looks like high-volume vandalism that then somebody's got to clean up. In fact, I'd recommend a block if such editing continues.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• You should look more closely. The removal of empty paragraphs gives the illusion that huge changes have taken place, where in fact they quite minor. Try ctrl-f and see how much is actualy missing. Alright, my judgement was correct, now as to the complaint. The simplest resolution here, and, the most appropriate one is for the IP to cease and desist editing talk pages to improve format. It may make it look slightly better but it does indeed mean that an editor needs to go through and check that no vandalism has been intentionally hidden. Those edits are highly likely to be reverted on the spot by an editor on the grounds that it appears to be vandalism. Now, good faith/bad faith. Check at least one of the edits yourself and try to identify anything inappropriate, otherwise, assume good faith and let it go. If you see it continue and feel it may be bordering on the disruptive ping the IP editor and request that they stop (or slow down) and give a good reason for it; such as it bordering on disruptive editing. Finally, if that fails, then bring it to AN/I and have the admins look at it. The only unusual thing I saw in the edits was that they had changed the importance ratings for several wikiprojects, unless you edit for them or are in some way involved with them, don't just go around arbitrarily changing their settings. That's their choice, not somebody elses. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, I've gone ahead and completed partial reverts of the IP editors edits. The only portions I have reverted are the importance ratings that each article has as those are selected by the Wikiproject as they see fit. Other than that, I haven't identified anything else in need of reversion. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving discussion from wikimedia research mailing list

I'm bringing this to ANI from the wikimedia research mailing list; the thread is at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2016-August/005324.html I've taken enough positions on the mailing list to count as an interested party.

Summary

Researchers used a bunch of accounts to create a bunch of articles using natural-language understanding techniques to attribute every sentence to a web page. Many of the web pages are unreliable and/or not useful for encyclopedia building (i.e. definitions of specialist terms in general-purpose dictionaries). They published the research results at https://siddbanpsu.github.io/publications/ijcai16-banerjee.pdf The pages may need an uninvolved eye over them.

Reported usernames

• Brownweepy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theatremania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhopebhai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicdac123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My take

Other than any potential cleaning up of the articles I'm not sure that any action is warranted against the editors, since they were acting in good faith. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I just picked four new articles from three of those usernames at random, and they all looked okay if just a little weird. Do you know whether they have had offending articles deleted yet? 184.96.133.183 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

All appear to have article and content-related discussions on their talk pages, but the line where normal editing stops and the research starts is unclear. Some have clearly been deleted, see for example Mazaua, Miss Tourism Queen International, Buddhism Today, Mobile Marketing Association, New York Model Management and Johnny Klimek. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just WP:PRODd Talonid, which appears to be medical information. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's so bad, that I've just deleted it as G1, nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've PRODd Sonia Bianchetti Garbato, Formula Opel ‎, Randy Stradley and Amiens International Film Festival . I think I've now looked at all the recent stuff. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am deleting some of these, in whole or part, with the edit summary "created by irresponsible machine editing by sockpuppets of a researcher [253]" Any admin who wishes may restore them without asking me if they want to take responsibility. I am not yet blocking the sockpuppets, but I encourage any admin who wishes to do so. And, the experimenters should note that their program used as sources several Wikipedia mirrors, well know n a such to all experienced human editors. Most were already removed by the time I got there. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

their results

The authors say "We also created several articles using our approach in the English Wikipedia, most of which have been retained in the online encyclopedia." They claim if one looks more closely "The entire content added by our approach was retained only in 12 articles, "

They have no statement that their work has been approved by our research committee, and I do not see any statement that it has been approved by their university's research committee. Tbe presumably think they have dealt with any objections by their statement that the articles "are constantly monitored".

I consider this irresponsible editing, They admit they did not attempt to find our rules. That they thought there were no rules about this is no more a defense than a sockpuppet claiming that they did not know of rules about sockpuppettry. True, the only rule we actually display to people is about copyright. We could put a mandatory link to a list of policies or even to a page containing the key policies, but this would only be seen by a contributor as the usual click-through boilerplate.

The real problem is what it shows about our own failures. Not just that the articles were not detected, but that many dozens of bona fide editors worked on these articles without realizing their nature. This matches what anyone can see in the history of articles at AfD, that too many people make cosmetic fixes or fill in references without looking at the context. Some are of course explicitly bots, bot some are humans doing bot-assisted work who have the responsibility of checking what they do, and a depressing number are purely manual edits. As a positive note, the first WPedian to see the article I just deleted did very correctly add a template for "cleanup|reason=Poor grammar, unprofessional tone, better sources needed" . DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I regret to say I am one of the humans who performed inadequately, for I accepted an AfC with weirdly written but decipherable content at Faustus (Mamet play) and merged it into Faustus (play), without even fixing the weirdness. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the main problem concerns the research ethics of these researchers. Their computational approach to creating articles clearly failed, generating obvious nonsense. Yet, they uploaded these nonsense articles and took advantage of the often long time it takes for us to find them or that instead of deleting such articles, we try to fix them. They then use these issues with how we respond to claim their research was successful when in fact it was an utter failure.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the usernames associated with the incident. I removed one of the userlinks as I realised that it was not used in this experiment. We made some edits using that username but most were as-is content , hence there was copyvio, which a reviewer had reverted in most cases, and we edited manually in a few cases. We did say that several edits were retained on Wikipedia in terms of quantity, but quality is still a problem as evident from the text. Moreover, we did use a human eye to check the content generated before posting it on Wikipedia. We did not want to use a bot to randomly go and create articles. Also, we ccould have deleted the articles after creation, but we saw several edits being made to multiple articles to improve them and it seemed they were adding some value. Furthermore, the rules were unclear -- however, as we are not conducting anything else now, I will make sure that I inform all researchers in this area about what's acceptable. I agreed to give away all the usernames I used such that the cleaning can be done. - Brownweepy (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a clear attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia for the researcher's own aims. I think that a site ban is the appropriate response.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a misrepresentation to say that their aim was disruption; the disruption was clearly just of incidental concern to them, which is problematic enough. In any event, I also support site bans in this instance, without reservation. Further, in light of their apparently complete lack of effort to engage with the research community or the WMF and approach their research process through proper channels, their research institution definitely needs to be informed of their behaviour here, and the disruption it has caused. They clearly used this project as a testbed for their work without the consent or foreknowledge of the community, creating a mess our volunteers will now have to spend numerous editorial hours attempting to clean up.

Frankly, I find garden variety vandals markedly less offensive than this. The professional ethics of these researchers need a serious check; their efforts to explain above, while apparently honest, are seriously lacking. Any experienced researcher should know better than to leverage (and potentially disrupt) an open project in their research without first clearing it with the institution managing that project. This is seriously amateur hour and might be comical if not for the work created out of their fumbling. Let's make sure this gets addressed at every relevant level. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, as I have mentioned earlier, disrupting was never the goal. I am trying to address this with everyone of you from the Wikipedia community. The thing is previous work on this: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P09-1024 was done long back by other researchers. Given that they worked on critical categories such as diseases, nothing about such research was mentioned on Wikipedia. Moreover, our similar work was covered by Wikimedia newsletter earlier [254] and nothing was mentioned as to get things checked about this kind of work. We would definitely have involved the wikimedia research community had we seen any related information on such issues. We definitely did not want to do anything of this sort which this research (https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/127472) claims to do by forcibly randomizing content. I completely understand that the articles would need edits from editors, but we tried to keep the number of articles to bare minimum level. I am just gaining experience now as a researcher (doctoral student), but want to make sure these things do not get repeated. Most of the things mentioned here have been covered in the research mailing list, I would request to please keeping it there, so that I can get an entire set of information at the same place and bring it to the notice of the research committee (the committee to whom I presented my proposal to conduct this work). My advisor would also be posting on that thread within a few days as he is travelling now and he would provide his thoughts on the same. Brownweepy (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should hack into your dissertation the night before your defense and add some facially reasonable-looking garbage to the footnotes and bibliography. What in the world is wrong with you? EEng 07:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently, "disrupting was never the goal". Brownweepy, this masterpiece was one of the gifts brought to us by this exercise. Approximately how much volunteer editor time do you think it would take to fix that, if it is fixable? What would you say the threshold for being disruptive is? Was any consideration whatsoever given to the volunteer hours this exercise would waste or the trouble it would cause? Don't feel you have to be too detailed in your answers - the questions are largely rhetorical. Randy Stradley is a real person, by the way, was that a consideration, at all? --Begoon ^talk 07:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Brownweepy, I am just an ordinary Wikipedia editor who has tried to improve this encyclopedia pretty much every day for the past seven years. I only have a 35 year year old bachelor's degree and am far from the exalted status of a PhD candidate. I am surprised that a PhD candidate like you writes in such a muddled fashion and would set out on a "research" project that would end up disrupting the #6 website in the world, creating really poor content and making extra work for volunteers who will get no academic credit for cleaning up your messes. Your "research" seems to be both without value and actually counterproductive. Ponder this, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)l

• Brownweepy, there seems a general view that (a) your machine-generated articles are below the minimum acceptable standard for Wikipedia contributions, and (b) you don't seem to care that your "research" is predicated on other random strangers cleaning up after you. So we can move forward, will you and your fellow researchers agree not to create any more machine-generated articles, and to go back over your previous creations to fix the more nonsensical parts? -- Euryalus (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Euryalus Yes, I have mentioned this that we did not add any content after Feb 2016 (6 months before) and we will not add anything new. If we do anything on generation. we will get it evaluated thru a diff crowdsourcing technique and not 'disrupt' content on Wikipedia. I will go over the old created content (already have edited many when earlier reviewers said content has issues) and fix them as far as i can. Also, if content that seems totally garbage, I will request deletion of entire articles.If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I understand that content was below acceptable standard, and I do care that time was needed to fix the content in several cases by editors. Edit: I made small reverts to the content that was added from our machine generated content in 3 articles. Could you please check if the changes seem fine with the reasoning? I will proceed with the others in that case a few hours from now.Brownweepy (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Brownweepy: thanks for the assurances; if you could review and rectify all the content created as part of this research, that would be great. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: I have corrected the issues for the first account, removed content in several cases, fixed grammaticalities and also validated info from sources (removed if the source ceases to exist where the information was not relevant). I will continue working on the other accounts. If you see anything wrong with the edits I made recently, please let me know. Brownweepy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Brownweepy, I recognize your desire to attempt to rectify this situation, and it is appreciated, but you must understand that you've put the volunteer community in a bit of a spot here. The problem is, for someone doing research on how to generate content on Wikipedia, you seem to be remarkably unfamiliar with the project's procedures and policies. You've said a few times now that you didn't realize you were violating any guidelines by conducting this research as you did. But that's a pretty wild assumption--it doesn't seem you applied even cursory diligence in exploring what our rules might be on such matters. Did you contact so much as a single person at the Wikimedia Foundation or our volunteer community before coming to this conclusion and then bowling through with generating and adding large amounts of junk content through multiple accounts? That's a pretty basic step to ignore in conducting research in an ethical and effective manner and in failing to make that effort, you not only denied the community the opportunity to decide whether we wish to allow/participate in this research, you precluded any efforts we might have made to minimize the disruption and affect a quick clean-up of this machine-generated nonsense material.

This is all the more galling for the fact that you clearly anticipated that you would be generating work for editors here; part of your metrics for judging the success of your process are predicated in whether editors retained or removed the content added. Which, by the way, huh? The fact that you felt that you could draw a strong empirical correlation between a) whether an article was retained or deleted and b) the coherence and general quality of the generated content, is just further evidence that you are woefully unfamiliar with the topic you are conducting research on; otherwise you would have understood the vast number of procedural and systemic issues that make drawing that conclusion from that result a ludicrous assumption. And it's clear that drumming up this "evidence" of the success of your process (when compared against other methods for creating machine-generated content) was the only reason for adding the content to Wikipedia, as otherwise you would have just analyzed the results of your content by applying your heuristics, without uploading the content at all (which, if you weren't going to reach out to the community before adding that material, is exactly what you should have done).

So, again, this all puts us in a tough place. You violated both multiple behavioural and editorial guidelines (and the trust of the community broadly) and have created a lot of work for our volunteers, most of which probably could have been avoided if you'd done basic diligence in reaching out to the community before rushing forward. Even with your willingness to engage with the material to remove that which is unsuitable, there simply has been/will be a lot of effort to sort all of this out, both in article and talk space. So if we don't address this situation, we risk inviting a repeat with the next researcher working on computational approaches to natural language who wants to use us the site as a testbed without working with the community to minimize disruption.

Now, in light of the fact that you genuinely seem to want to eliminate the consequences of your previous approach here, I expect you'll avoid a ban (though it's hard to say; some may take a very dim view of the socking). And despite the above, I'm leaning towards this option, if only because we can clean this mess up faster with your help than without. And who knows, maybe we'll even get a new regular editor out of the whole mess. But I would be prepared for the community to also see the need to examine this whole matter in detail and to observe this as an obvious example of how not to conduct outside research on this project. Because researchers and institutions need to realize that this project is not a laboratory for their work, not unless they make an effort to work with the community. Sorry to be so hard-nosed and blunt about all of this, but in the event that this gets more community attention than you were hoping for, I think you should be told why, so that you can appreciate that this is about fixing the broken content and preventing future disruption, and not about punishing you for mistakes you already recognize. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise: Snow Rise, thanks for your note. I understand what you have written here.I would request a delay in the ban such that I can clean up all the mess (should not take more than a couple of days as most of the articles in the usernames have already been deleted). I agree that it is necessary to fix this from a research perspective. I am planning to write a summary of all the learning in the research mailing list and would request you to please add anything that I might miss. I want to bring it to the notice of everyone somewhat related to my research (university, research committee, advisor) and also to other researchers I know who work on similar areas. I admit that the community was involved unknowingly and it is important from an ethical point of view. While we tried to post minimal articles, other researchers might try generating a lot more and this certainly needs to be addressed and stopped. While no justification can be provided in this case, our assumptions (based on our prev work being written about in an initial research newsletter and also existing work in this area cited above) kind of made us believe in things that were inappropriate. It is important to decide with representatives from WMF on what can be /not done. The premise of this kind of work(even the previous ones) rests with the belief that if content can pass on as written by humans is a success, which is a highly invalid claim. I think a major section in the upcoming newsletter would help get better community attention on these aspects. Brownweepy (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is the list of accounts at the head of this thread complete? EEng 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @EEng: Yes, it is. There was one extra account that I listed earlier, but it was already fixed long back to resolve copyvios. I fixed contentin all articles from brownweepy account. Will proceed with the others. Please let me know if you find anything wrong with my recent corrections. Update: Second username articles checked and errors corrected. Brownweepy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have made corrections and removed several content that looked garbage in the articles from my above mentioned accounts. I was not sure during the start of this discussion whether I should go and edit it myself as people in the research list were actively participating in a discussion. Thanks to a couple of notes yesterday, that made me go and change/revert/correct the edits. Also, several of the articles from such users have already been removed by other administrators. In some cases, the references that I used did not seem reliable and I have removed content and such references. I have gone through all the articles. I would request people of this thread to take a look if possible to the recent corrections I did and if anything looks wrong, please let me know. As I have mentioned earlier, my advisor will participate in the discussion in the mailing list. But I want to summarize all that came up in the discussion and I will post that experience on the mailing list soon -- starting from multiple account violation to the lack of informing the Wikimedia research community. Brownweepy (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

there's something else you should realise that was mentioned earlier: One of the article subjects you chose was a living person. We make special efforts to verify information and ensure accuracy for articles on living human beings, because of the possible damage that could be done. They are written in the WP:BLP policy, which is of our fundamental rules, and one that we enforce with particular rigour. Of all the possible Wikipedia material to use for experimenting, this is the most out-of-bounds. If your university's research committee had realised you were going to machine-edit such material on our live site, they would not conceivably have given you permission. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi DCG, I understand what you mentioned here. Had we considered informing the Wikipedia community before, probably everything would have been discussed at the very beginning and such things would not have happened. I have tried to address all edits and verified the information, although I agree it might be too late. The Univ committee probably also might not be very conversant about the rules and policies, but that could have been tackled had a conversation with someone from the community would have been done at the very beginning. I will discuss all of these with the committee members (will be back to school next week) as I think it requires major attention from everyone's perspective. When I see the first work in this area (http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P09-1024), they worked on category of film actors, which might have/had similar impact. All the information, if summarized at a common place, would help us (and other researchers) to fully follow the rules and also prevent future instances of such disruption. -Brownweepy (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What Univ is this? EEng 06:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Brownweepy. EEng 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

EEng Penn State. Sorry I saw your msg now. You can see the discussion on the mailist list too. My advisor will write over there by end of this week. Brownweepy (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This needs further cleanup. I just deleted Wube Haile Maryam as, even after all the nonsense was removed (and this really was a dreadful article), the remainder was wrong. I also corrected Adriana Roel, which was already revisited by Brownweepy but his edit did nothing to solve the problems he created. The same applies to Oceania Cycling Championships which was a nonsensical article with copyvio problems ("attracted members of the public eager to see high calibre international cyclists." in the source vs. "attract members of the public who are interested in watching high calibre international cyclists." in the article). Considering the bad history, the lack of content now, and the errors still remaining in those few lines, I have simply deleted it as a test page, and someone can actually write a real article about the subject. I also deleted Robert Lortac, also corrected by Brownweepy but still a mess of copyvio sentences and wrong information. I fully support a ban of all four accounts, this really isn't acceptable. Fram (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried to create a new draft for the first article mentioned here (Wube Haile) and have submitted that in article drafts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wube_Haile_Maryam). Brownweepy (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is relevant to WP:ANI, so I've given a content-based reply at User talk:Brownweepy. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Endorse sitebans, although perhaps give Brownweepy time to fix any articles they would like to. This is taking the community for a ride. Blythwood (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• In this edit Brownweepy appears to admit cut and pasting unseen references from another wikipedia article to build their new article and shows no understanding that that might not be optimal behaviour. I give up. I'm walking away and un-following all the relevant pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Stuartyeates I am not sure if I correctly explained what I did. I did not cut and paste any words here. I did use one of the references as that same reference was found in 4 different articles on Wikipedia. However, after you mentioned it, I removed that reference. I searched on google books for the book, did not find it. however, I found the same info in another google book and have added that as a reference now. I am trying to make sure that I am doing everything to get the best information from the other sources. I am not doing anything machine-generated in this case. Furthermore, I have created it in drafts namespace such that it does not cause any major damages and I am working on it and trying my best to improve. Brownweepy (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I will try to explain my action on the draft article that I was working on. I did not think that I will have to explain something in such detail even if I am trying to write something on my own and not any random machine-generated content, but it seems that it is kind of unavoidable. I found some sources on the web(well, one of them being marked as unreliable) and then tried to write a very short article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wube_Haile_Maryam. I found some information about the personality on 2 Wikipedia pages, I noted them in the draft as I considered the info important. However, I could not directly find any resource on the web (or google books). So, I kept the reference as the same as in the other Wikipedia articles. I put everything in drafts. I admitted what I did because I thought that way, other reviewers can help me in finding the best sources. Yes, I got a suggestion that google books might have better sources -- then I looked up and found the info and entered that reference. I tried to follow all other suggestions that have been made on my talk page(including removing linking to a disambiguation page, use of pronoun, etc.). I tried to assimilate the information from the sources and avoid any copyvios. Even in a prev post here, I asked for feedback just to be sure I am on the right track -- both learning how to make good quality edits and contribute. Please check the history if you feel I am claiming anything wrong. But, I guess all my actions, even admitting something for the intention of learning, are appearing negative . I do not want to ruin anything here, so I won't be making further edits as I guess it is continuing to create more problems (despite my best intentions). Please remove the draft article if it seems inadequate as per the standards of Wikipedia. Thanks everyone. And extremely sorry for such a terrible long post. Brownweepy (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Not a legal threat in the strictest sense - see here - but there is no merit in continuing this discussion further (see also the big red editnotice at the top of this page regarding libel/defamation matters). In passing, have also notified JohnHarold on how an article subject should approach corrections to their own article. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Addendum for completeness: JohnHarold also blocked by another admin. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does this edit [255] to Talk:Paul Frampton by User:JohnHarold constitute a legal threat? It seems to me to be skirting quite close to one. Note that User:JohnHarold appears to be (certainly claims to be) Paul Frampton himself, and that I am clearly the editor he refers to. The editing on this page has been a depressing story, with long edit wars from the bio subject and his friends who have tried to remove any reference to his well documented conviction and also from detractors who have repeatedly tried to insert highly defamatory material, but the current version is broadly similar to versions that have been looked over by admins in the past. Obviously I would welcome any thoughts if opinions have changed on the appropriate level of detail with which this incident should be covered. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC) If it's not a legal threat, it's very nearly one. GABgab 16:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC) While not explicitly a legal threat, it is certainly intended to produce a chilling effect, and precedent suggests that Wikipedia does not like such threats. I had reached that conclusion before this thread was opened. As regards the level of detail, it appears reasonable and certainly is backed by sources, despite hand waving by JohnHarold. -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'll post my thoughts as I read along; "having a Wikipedia editor who seems mentally unhealthy (OCPD)" clear violation of WP:NPA, "pushing mental as well as physical care so this editor could surely get his urgently needed treatment for OCPD." Another clear violation of WP:NPA, "One of my US lawyers ... I ... ask him about maliciously uploading defamatory material on the World Wide Web ... in the US is a definitely winnable libel lawsuit ... certainly winnable in the UK where the libel laws are much stricter." sounds very much like an impending legal threat. From here, it actually gets better? the editor goes off on a tangent of their life story comes back to the editor and says "It is a pleasure to meet you." I, don't know how I feel about this. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Definitely a legal threat. On a side note it doesn't look like anyone gave a {{uw-nlt}} warning. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC) I removed his comment under NPA. There is some leniancy towards incivility when an argument is heated, but as yet I have yet to see anyone accept blatant accusations editors are mentally ill. If anyone wants to take the time to redact the personal attacks and replace his comment, feel free to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC) It definitely qualifies as a legal threat. Why isn't he indef'd yet? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC) He's indeffed now. Yes, we're supposed to clarify intent with posts like that one, but coupled with the personal attacks? I don't think the guy is going to back down. If he does, anyone can unblock. Katietalk 18:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks everyone! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC) It's not only a legal threat, but a very credible one. The Wiki article states "The prosecutor presented evidence of text messages and emails sent by Frampton discussing the suitcase, the drugs, and their street value." The editor presenting himself as Frampton says that he believes this evidence was created by prosecutor tampering. There's also a debate on the talk page over whether a US court might have exonerated Frampton. All of Frampton and his friends' statements might very well be true, notwithstanding old RS to the contrary, and notwithstanding whether or not there are RS to support Frampton's viewpoint. Frampton (assuming that it's him) says he has spoken to a lawyer, and the lawyer thinks Frampton has a case. When faced with a BLP lawsuit threat, don't escalate by blocking, for crying out loud!! I say, unblock him and talk to him. I would do it myself, but I don't know how. And JJ, please try not to take the OCPD thing personally. It's a minor insult in the scheme of things, and would not be considered libel for various technical reasons. Whereas, repeating false statements about criminal activity might very well be libel. JerryRussell (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC) OK, I see that edit blocking is standard procedure for legal threats, and that he's not blocked from editing his own talk page. I'm going to try to engage him there. Looking back at the edit history for the page, I see this has been going on for a long time! Maybe more eyes on the situation will help. JerryRussell (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Wow, talk about the Streisand effect! If it hadn't been for his own attempts to suppress it, I'd never have known that "In 2012, Frampton was convicted of drug smuggling as a drugs mule in Argentina." Noted. EEng 00:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Might even be intentional Streisand effect induced by somebody other than Frampton. I looked at Frampton's book and his web pages, and at this point I believe that the current Wiki article is absolutely accurate by all accounts including Frampton's own. There's no mention anywhere in those materials, that Frampton thinks evidence was tampered by the prosecuting attorney. The person claiming to be Frampton here at Wiki strikes me as writing in a very different style than the real Frampton. JerryRussell (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Post-close additions: Euryalus, your close here is somewhat misleading. The user has been indefinitely blocked by KrakatoaKatie for making legal threats as is evident here coupled with NPA as mentioned in her comment on this thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC) I don't agree that it is a legal threat, but YMMV. Either way there is little merit in continuing this thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Euryalus; I was not referring to the legal threat, but, that you haven't mentioned their indef block in your close, giving the impression that no action has been taken. Apologies if my comment was misleading as well. Feel free to remove my comments here, if necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit war at Murder of Seth Rich

The following discussion is closed. 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 a bit of an edit war at Murder of Seth Rich. No one individual seems to be reverting too often, but there are a lot of people reverting. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for four days. Hopefully they can decide on what's trivial and what isn't in that time. Katie^talk 00:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! Related: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Murder of Seth Rich --Guy Macon (talk)

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

Battles in Székely Land

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

---

To start off, I'm an uninvolved editor who happened across this edit war in progress. The article in question is Székely Land, and the involved parties are User:Biruitorul and User:KIENGIR.

It seems to have started with this edit, which seems to indicate that these editors have some sort of history (indeed, there is, and it isn't pretty). A quick look through the article history indicates escalating tensions and reverts without so much as an attempted discussion on the talk page (the closest thing to a resolution attempt is here, which seems to have been abandoned). Threats were made (not legal): [256], [257], and [258]. WP:AGF seems to have gone out the window, and a 3RR and NPA warnings to both involved here seems to have done nothing. Both editors have previously been blocked for edit-warring, and I feel that some stronger remedies may be in order now. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

First, let me correct you on your timeline. My last edit on the Székely Land page took place at 23:24 on 19 August; your warning arrived at 00:28 on 20 August. So, actually, I want to be clear I've backed off that page, in the interests of involved parties.

Second, perhaps I didn't approach this the right way, but KIENGIR does make personal attacks, and there should be some way to make him understand this is not acceptable. Given these attacks, plus a demonstrated failure to understand WP:RS, plus a likely agenda, plus lack of WP:COMPETENCE in the English language, I think it's perfectly fair to say that at some point in the future, say in six months' time, the community should once again look at his position here. (About that last point, not knowing English, check out his revamped article on the Ip massacre (which, by the way, I didn't touch). Whereas before we had a short, comprehensible article citing neo-fascist and national-communist sources, now we have an utterly incomprehensible mess that still manages to quote neo-fascist and national-communist sources. Not much of an improvement, if you ask me.)

Third, I'm not sure what I should have responded to that diatribe on my talk page. "I am heavy-weight expert professional in Hungary - Romania history affiliations"? OK, although as an aside, actual experts don't go around calling themselves experts. "Would you once try to forget here you are a Wikipedian and not Romanian, and would you a little bit ignore your Hungarophobia and interested in professional articles?" Obvious WP:NPA violation coupled with baseless allegations of "Hungarophobia". There really isn't much to respond to, especially as the comment relies on rhetoric rather than reliable sources.

Anyway, I have better things to do here than tangle with someone who can't grasp WP:RS, WP:NPOV and other basic policies - let others deal with him. I admit I wasn't always constructive on the page in question, and I apologize, but I'm ready to move on to more productive endeavors. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dschslava,

thank you for your intervention, if I'd meet first with Biruitorul repeated revert, I'd notify an Administrator about the state of edit warring - I just recently cleared with one regarding an other issue in a certain frame what means repeatedly, Biruitorul now clearly crossed this line. Thank you also that you listed clearly Biruitorul's threats, if has to be also noted WP:AGF has been overriden strictly by Biruitorul, as he proved it also in the former ANI incident he rendered and failed, he did not learn anything from it, he also refused the communication then, there, like also when I started the WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS process in his talk page and asking him all the time for calm collaboration ang good faith. 3RR was not harmed in the corresponding article. Personal attacks I suffered, it can be read in the edit logs, however Biruitorul foxily tries to identify himself as a victim. I was even astonished why Helmut von Moltke warned me about this, well also in the former ANI incident a huge attempt has been revealed to coin other editors and Administrators.

Reaction to Biruitorul's post:

- I did not make personal attacks to you, you did continously in your former ANI report when you composed such a defamation campaign based on your distorted personal opinion and you repeated them like a robot without any attempt to communicate or understanding the failed approach of yours, as it has been noticed also by the Administrators. He you started with "obsession" and "revisionist agenda", although the first can be easily proved towards you, the second is a usual bluff since supporting the factual sourced approach towards event next to strictly POV edits by emotion has nothing to do with the latter. You do not hinder you ethnicity in your user page and what I have told was not an attack, another Romanian Wikipedian told me here not any ethnicity exists, everybody is a Wikipedian and I asked you to hold back your Romanian emotions and overexaggerated sensitivity - this is not an attack -, and unfortunately your edit's, edit logs and approach, moreover the total denial of communication and building WP:CONSENSUS unfortunately very much tending to a case of Hungarophobia. Everyone can check your manifestations the former ANI incident you rendered, how you dealt with Hungary related cases, full with accusations, bad faith that is the by-production of your mind.

Let's see one example:

-In the Northern Transylvania article, after adding an fact without any politics or emotion that incidents with the military happened before the massacres, you manifestated immediately:

" I reject blaming the victims of mass murder for being murdered" -> A result of your own negative -prejudicative manifestation towards me and Hungary related cases, although - you are a first level English speaker - not any root of such assertion existed or meant, moreover it is well-known in one case negligence caused the incident without any involvement of any ethnicity. You immediately, without any discussion or calm thinking you blamed and made a revert and if we check you edit logs and comments you are enthusiastically adding any material that would make appear Hungary or Hungarians in a negative manner, just see the recent case (even if your additions are sourced or true or not relevant or would not belong to the article). This combattant attitude has no benefit but better the good faith and mutual collaboration. Abouth "childish" and "securist", I have raised these in a question qualifying a certain planned behavior in the future, it is still not a personal attack in a way that you'd make it appear, since yes, I consider still these are holding if you think by cataloging anf filing secret service style reports and defamations and to render new ANI incidents reminds me the Communist times, and this is totally AGAINST the concept of Wikipedia and GOOD FAITH, where mutual collaboration leads to good articles with a truthful and objective content, not any pre-planned disruptive behavior, like you want to achieve a solution to REMOVE (" hopefully convince the community to topic-ban you ") the element that is disturbing you instead of face the facts and keep Wikipedia rules and struggle for objectivity and truthful content that you obviously denied in the Székely Land article. Wikipedia has it's own rules, if one is harmed, arbitration starts, we have to live with this, but to collect and catalogue files on a person with an aim to a desired ban does not fulfill any Wikipedia principle, on the contrary, such cases were in practise during the Communism. Moreover you advertize in your personal page that "This user seeks to promote peace and harmony among Central and Eastern European Wikipedians" and "This user utterly condemns the criminal regime that ruled Romania from 1947 to 1989." ---> Unfortunately we did not see these principles to be followed by you, I am deeply sorry!

- I understand WP:RS, maybe you have a problem since you just removed a bunch of them although they would balance you POV edit. If I have English mistakes, feel free to correct them, I don't think I am among the worse who are editing the English Wikipedia. Moreover the Ip massacre article was poorly written and constructed, also it contained heavier English mistakes, however, again anyone should feel free to correct linguistic mistakes. How you could tell dear hat it has no improvement???? You completely regard as a fool all Wikipedians? An article that does not mention precisely the events, preludes of such an important event of a high impact? However, you are again telling something that is not true, since I did not add any "neo-fascist" or "national-communist" sources, moreover I did not remove any former source

- Why you spare the ANI audience about the fact the "I am heavy-weight expert professional in Hungary - Romania history affiliations" quote was added to your page not by me, but an IP Address that started to provocate me and an other user with composed lies? In such a poor way you wish to evade that you AGAIN REFUSED ANY COMMUNICATION THAT FOR IN THE EARLIER ANI INCIDENT YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS?

-"There really isn't much to respond to, especially as the comment relies on rhetoric rather than reliable sources." -> ???? You just removed the second and third time RELIABLE SOURCES that was added by me, you don't feel ashamed you try to coin again editors, admins reading this ANI incident? Are you serious?

-"Anyway, I have better things to do here than tangle with someone who can't grasp WP:RS, WP:NPOV and other basic policies - let others deal with him. I admit I wasn't always constructive on the page in question, and I apologize, but I'm ready to move on to more productive endeavors" -> WP:RS is a phrase you repeat like "personal attack" or "revisionist agenda", the more you repeat the more you think it will be true....but please...WP:NPOV do not mention again, because if someobody struggles for this in this community, it is me and all of my edits are proving this and all of them I can PROUDLY defend. Unfortunately the conflict you rendered is mostly just and only because you don't want to follow WP:NPOV, and I explained it to you very carefully in your personal page by my resolution attempt. I have to tell you here then, we may reach CONSENSUS and all of your edits can remain in the Székely Land article if you also let mine. If you disagree, we have to remove both of our additions and try to build a new consensus and since the former content was an unreferenced content - thus it may be deleted - you have to see without building consensus YOU HAVE NO CHANCE. I am sorry you rejected my first consensus offer that was totally free of POV, POLITICS, or EMOTIONS.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

• I have nothing to respond to this rambling screed other than reiterating my apologies for allowing things to get slightly out of hand, and my promise to avoid this user as much as possible in the future, given that constructive collaboration with him is at best a frustrating waste of time.
• Actually, I will note just one thing: I'm hardly the only productive contributor he's antagonized. I urge interested parties to look at two talk pages - where I had zero involvement - and where he made it painfully clear he has no real grasp of WP:RS. These are Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) and Talk:László Bárdossy. At the latter page, the exasperation of the administrator (and prolific content contributor) engaged with this user even reached a similar "threat" to mine: "I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary".
• So I'm not the only one who's found it impossible to work with KIENGIR, but I will stay away, and let someone else deal with this festering problem. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Biruitorul,

- you prove again everything that I've demonstrated here, instead of communicating, you are evading, because you also realized you have no chance, unfortunately facts are facts.

- You are again foxily deteriorating the attention by quoting solved earlier cases and discussions in the talk page has nothing to do with this, you cannot hide that you removed WP:RS with an disruptive aim, ignoring good faith and consensus building. The quote of the current Administrator "I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary" was meant to make an open debate about the validity of possible territorial demands towards Croatia, it has nothing common with your negative aimed behavior, so you again mislead the community here - and anyway that case I had also right and I also demonstrated it with an RS! It is heavily funny you try even to make any comparison with an Administrator who has an ultimate good faith and collaborative effort - comparing to you - :)

- So, regardless how desperately you try to wash yourself out, you are the one who is REJECTING communication and REJECTS to follow Wikipedia guidelines, meanwhile you foxily try to avoid to face the problems your created with your behavior! I repeat, in Wikipedia not any activity may be hidden, so the Administrator's will notice again your continous misleading attempts on the subjects presented here, it has nothing to do with GOOD FAITH again!(KIENGIR (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

While I'm not really affected by this user's habitual abuse, even I have some limits. No, I did not "remove WP:RS with a disruptive aim", I removed a passage about the background to the Second Vienna Award inserted into an article on the Székely Land, a place where it was contextually irrelevant. I specifically directed the user to transfer it to the other article if he so wished.

His diversion about the "community forum" comment can easily be countered by quoting the full context of that comment: "No. That is not how we operate on en WP. We also do not ping people we think might agree with us. That is called canvassing, and is very poor Wikiquette. I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary. Like I said, the obligation is on you, not me." That has to do with disruptive behavior and failure to grasp basic policies like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, not the status of Croatia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you may have valuable insight on this discussion, also, as I recall, you're quite well versed in the political history of the Balkan states and also WWII. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR and Biruitorul, if you would limit your statements to ~500 words and include a minimum of 3 good diffs, I do think that situation would be a lot easier for everyone. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 18:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've more or less said what I have to say, but to recap: while my edits per se on the Székely Land page were constructive, my way of going about them and my edit summaries were sometimes not, and I acknowledge that lapse (and it is just a lapse - I've started around an article a day for the past month, many of them at quite high quality); I can't deal with a user who appears willfully unable to follow basic policies, and whose modus operandi involves unleashing torrents of largely meaningless verbiage, so moving forward, I will disengage, avoiding him and the pages he edits as much as possible; finally, his abiding problems should be addressed, but I'm not the one to try and do that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Dschslava, ok, I wil try. Just I urge you to see and also the Administrators who join how Biruitorul is again and again coining and try to mislead all the community, his persistent foxiness and modus operandum is again against Wikietiquette and good faith (and as he proves, he is continuing to tracking the users he did not like instaead of quality editing).

He misleads everybody since he willfully wanted just and only to appear a POV information that not equals with the legal background. He rejected the NPOV, political, emotional free consensus offer and he continously removed RS with the pretext that he again tries to sell. It was a willful provocation without any good faith because he does not like the sourced legal background information and it's content. This is not the way and it is disruptive! Moreover, he cannot wash himself more, since he initiated an edit warring and thus he violated the rules of Wikipedia, that's why we are here!

WP:V is a new invention of him that has not any connection to the subject, moreover he thinks if he cites some speacial details from an earlier case without seeing the whole he is willfully tries to manipulate the current incidents with other things that have no connection to the topic, this is a foxy diversion and misleading activity again. It is true the the Administrator wrote this on that talk page, BUT, Biruitorul foxily spares that this station was not right, since no canvassing happenned, since the editors who have been invited were one Croatian editor interested in history, and two other Hungarian editors that have adequate knowledge on the subject and for an objective opinion everyone was invited from the different sides, and this was also to told to the current Administrator and nothing happened since it was true.

Biruitorul, you are not even a little bit ashamed deep inside you about your continous actions how try to coin everybody? I think it is highly dangerous if you try to manipulate an Administrator's words like you tried to identify a possible discussion about a special historical POV as it would be such awful "threat"s you performed? You think Peacemaker67 does not know Wiki rules? You are playing va banque in a situation where there is no escape? You think they will not check everything we stated here and they won't find out who has right? I am quite peaceful and tolerant like always, but for continous misleading and coinage attempt in the ANI (!!!) regarding editors and Administrators would deserve a very severe punishment such an activity is deep below any tolerance!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

• Comment: Dschslava: None of this belongs at ANI because these are all content disputes and you have not done even the least bit of article talkpage discussion [259]. Please go back and open discussions there. ANI is not the place to broker content disputes; the article talk page is. If you are unable to broker a consensus or resolution, then, for example, find out what each single issue is and open an WP:RFC on the most pressing one. Encourage the users and all of the editors on that article to utilize the various WP:DR measures. Bringing two editors here to hash it out is not the way to resolve problems; it only exacerbates them. We've already had one endless useless thread about this: [260]. Additionally, if edit-warring continues after user-talk warning, the place to report that is WP:ANEW, not here. I recommend that an administrator close this thread before we have an endless repeat performance of the thread from last month [261]. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be content disputes that were never discussed (I have asked Biruitorul four times to provide diffs of his attempts to discuss these issues with KIENGIR, and he has not)......Apply WP:BRD, WP:DR, and so on. Please go back to the drawing board and engage collaboratively with the editor, no matter what your personal opinion of his edits are. Focus on content, not editors. It does indeed seem that this thread was merely a reaction of an attempt of KIENGIR to communicate with you, but instead of engaging with him you filed this report. That does not appear to be a collaborative or fair action. -> Softlavender, your former statement also hold here, I initiated long before a conversation regarding this issue in his talk page, of course again no answer, instead of personal attacks, threats with reports, bad faith a non-collaborative actions. The continous evasion and misleading attempts should be measured, otherwise what is the guarantee it won't be happen again like already in two times? I have also a detailed list why his edits were not constructive and point by point why he failed to follow WP:NPOV - this would have been the current subject, instead of deterioration, but regarding you don't support this thread to be endless, I will post it in the article's talk page after this thread is adjourned.(KIENGIR (talk))

KIENGIR, do not ever discuss these issues on user-talk pages. Discuss only on article-talk. Please assure me that you have read and understood what I just said and that you will stay off the user's talk page. Keep all discussions on the article's talk page, and if there are problems always use some form of WP:DR. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, got it, always in the article's talk page. Regarding WP:DR, you may verify any time I followed according to the Wiki rules to my best knowledge, however from these arbitrations there is always anything new to be learned. I think if I'd reported the personal attacks immediately, the whole thing could not be escalated, but I was concentrating of communication and consensus building because I totally dislike to generate incidents.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC))

That's a good attitude. It's best to ignore personal attacks or personal comments, and focus only on content and on Wikipedia polices and guidelines. And when any issue cannot be satisfactorily resolved, go immediately to some form of dispute resolution (even if it's just getting a third opinion). You can also ask neutrally for input from the relevant WikiProjects (see any article's talk page banners for the relevant projects). And check out the WP:TEAHOUSE for general help and advice. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, OK, I learned from the case, I will twice as more watch my words the future, on the other hand, I will much more quickly ask for arbitration if any incident would occur. Only in one case I urged a Wikiproject, since the attempt to "alter history" was so enormous, that the weight implicated such involvement - here this should not be the case, since it is obvious. That case and it's full, satisfying resolution lasted at least 3 months (!), it was challenging, but definetly educative regarding WP:DR, WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks for your kind attention and struggle for peace!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC))

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

Thejoebloggsblog 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.

---

There has been a long term problem with the user:Thejoebloggsblog with their editing behaviour in relation to Australian rules football and the Port Adelaide Football Club, the behaviour mainly consists of edit warring and they will revert to their preference and very rarely discuss the issue with other editors. The issue mainly stems from them trying to redefine the VFL/AFL league without any factual basis and other editors have tried to inform him about this, but it's always ignored. Because WP:AFL does not have a lot of active participants, his behaviour goes largely unnoticed or nothing is done about it, I can't speak for other editors, but I know I am growing very tired of trying to improve pages and getting reverted by Thejoebloggsblog and then either getting no response from trying to discuss it or a response where the discussion will not go anywhere and is partly antagonistic.

Behaviour at Australian Football League
23–26 August 2015

• Thejoebloggsblog removal of content, revert by Flickerd, revert by Thejoebloggsblog, revert by @Jevansen:, revert by Thejoebloggsblog, revert by Flickerd, revert by Thejoebloggsblog, revert by @Jenks24:

6 September 2015–trying to redefine VFL/AFL by separating premierships

• [262], [263], [264], [265], all reverted by Jenks24 [266]

23 September 2015–same as above

• [267], [268], [269], all reverted by Flickerd [270]

1 October 2015–same as above (note VFL changed name to AFL in 1990)

• [271], [272], both reverted by Jevansen [273]

28 April–5 May 2016

• Long string of edits separating VFL/AFL premierships starting from [274] reverted by Jevansen [275]
  
• Another long string of edits, this time removing premierships again, reverted by Jevansen [276]
  
• 2 edits separating VFL/AFL premierships [277], [278], both reverted by @The-Pope: [279]
  
• Long string of edits separating VFL/AFL premierships, reverted by The-Pope [280]
  
• The-Pope leaves message at Thejoebloggsblog's talk page (User talk:Thejoebloggsblog#VFL is not separate to AFL)
  
• Thejoebloggsblog ignores and does another long string of edits separating VFL/AFL premierships, reverted by Jenks24 [281]
  
• Revert by Thejoebloggsblog with unusual edit summary [282]
  
• Revert by Jenks24 with link to WP:BRD [283]
  
• Jenks begins discussion on talk page at (Talk:Australian Football League#Club Table)
  
• Thejoebloggsblog does another long string of edits without proper discussion at talk page, reverted by Jenks24 [284]
  

There hasn't been any similar edits since this by Thejoebloggsblog, but I am referring to this behaviour as I have had some issues on List of Port Adelaide Football Club players recently where if the issue isn't resolved now, then there will most likely be a repeat of the long-term edit war at Australian Football League. List of Port Adelaide Football Club players was very long and large before I split the page [285], I saw a reasonable split as Port Adelaide competed in the SANFL until 1996 and the split page is at List of Port Adelaide Football Club players (before 1997) representing all those players, Port Adelaide then changed leagues and joined the Australian Football League in 1997 and List of Port Adelaide Football Club players is representative of that, all appropriate steps were taken in this split and there was a hatnote leading to the split page, there was no irrational removal of content. I did a more in depth explanation at Thejoebloggsblog's talk page (User talk:Thejoebloggsblog#List of Port Adelaide Football Club players) I understand it was very short and brash, but I have tried to be nice before and my explanations/requests go largely ignored, and I'm growing tired of it.

Thejoebloggsblog's has been reverting the edits without explanation [286], [287], [288], Jevansen agreed the split was reasonable [289], and Thejoebloggsblog reverted today [290]. Although it was not strictly within 24 hours, that is 4 reverts, and I have a strong suspicion that Thejoebloggsblog will wait a couple of days before reverting so he is not in direct violation of WP:3RR, however it's still edit warring without explanation.

Thejoebloggsblog is a supporter of Port Adelaide and I feel there are issues with WP:Ownership on his behalf where a part of my explanation was "please take into consideration that I am trying to improve the article and have it appropriately represented, and understand that you can't just have it the way you want it" and his response was "I want Port Adelaide players listed. Is that too much to ask?" I don't know if understands the process of a split, but there wasn't removal of Port Adelaide players as he alludes to, they are all at the split page.

I don't know what the solution is as I do acknowledge Thejoebloggsblog does do some good work on Wikipedia, but this behaviour has to stop, multiple people have tried to warn him about trying to redefine the leagues and editing/reverting without explanation but to little avail. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"The issue mainly stems from them trying to redefine the VFL/AFL league without any factual basis and other editors have tried to inform him about this, but it's always ignored." - Flickerd

'"please take into consideration that I am trying to improve the article and have it appropriately represented, and understand that you can't just have it the way you want it" - Flickerd

"I want Port Adelaide players listed. Is that too much to ask?" - My response (List of Port Adelaide Football Club players).

The Port Adelaide Football Club is an exception in the AFL as it did not originate in the VFL but carries 146 years of history. All other clubs that predate the AFL have all their senior players listed but because Port Adelaide played in the SANFL and not the VFL for some reason we are prevented from having our senior players listed on our own club page.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Further example of trying to redefine the league, VFL/AFL is the same league, all that happened was it was renamed, SANFL/AFL is not the same as VFL/AFL, so there isn't an exemption as was the case with the categories (User talk:Thejoebloggsblog#Port Adelaide players). The 12 clubs that competeted in the VFL prior to the rename did not have to change leagues, whereas Port Adelaide did. Flickerd (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"All other clubs that predate the AFL have all their senior players listed". No they don't. The since-1990 AFL is exactly the same league as the pre-1990 VFL. There is no distinction in official AFL records. The List of Richmond Football Club players and List of Western Bulldogs players don't have their players who played for those clubs in the VFA before 1908 or 1924 respectively listed. They only have their VFL/AFL players listed. Overseas, major clubs often split their lists by appearances, such as List of Liverpool F.C. players and List of Liverpool F.C. players (1–24 appearances), which I personally don't like. Splitting by league/era is entirely acceptable and preferable in this case. The-Pope (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring aside, this looks a great deal like a content dispute that really needs some dispute resolution. Has this been tried? Also, all participants should be warned that continued edit warring is obviously unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that these appear to be content disputes and therefore belong on article talk pages and WP:DR rather than here at ANI. Not only that, I don't see even one single edit-warring warning on Thejoebloggsblog's talk page, nor has he ever been reported at WP:ANEW. In terms of mediating or commenting on this dispute(s), I'd like to invite Casliber in for comment, since I see he actually engaged civilly with Thejoebloggsblog on his talk page, rather than snarking at him and then running to ANI as the OP seems to have done. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I have tried in the past to engage in conversation calmly on his talk page and other article talk pages and haven't had responses on multiple occasions, so I didn't just run to ANI, I was trying to find a solution as I didn't know what else to do and people have recommended going to dispute resolution, so that seems like the next step and will do so. Flickerd (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, content discussion belongs on article talk pages instead of user talk pages. If the other party does not engage, follow the steps in WP:DISCUSSFAIL. If the other party is edit warring, open a discussion on article talk, and if they edit war instead of discuss, then give them a user-talk warning (see WP:WARN and do Control+F edit war to find them), and if they persist in reverting after that, then report them at WP:ANEW, even if it's a slo-mo edit war. If there is discussion but there is no consensus or there is a deadlock, then utilize some form of WP:DR (and/or neutrally invite input from relevant WikiProjects). -- Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC); edited 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this response, I will try that process now, I understand that I was getting a bit impatient and was lumping all the problems into one rather than trying to discuss this in isolation. I am still learning about the processes at Wikipedia and was trying to find the appropriate process and solution to take and you have provided that, I was getting frustrated and needed clarity. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with preceding - many of the diffs are old. We need to discuss on article talk pages, be patient and alert at relevant noticeboards. There are alot of Aussie editors who will be familiar with the subject area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk:Argument from authority

The following discussion is closed. 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 note that the page for Talk:Argument from authority has been getting testy. I have just called out MjolnirPants for personal attacks, a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I would appreciate some editors looking at this. Chris Dubey (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Essentially this is an ongoing content dispute over the labelling of 'appeal to authority' as a logical fallacy (it isnt). Mjolnir's post here explains and links to the issues involved. A variety of strong reliable sources all clearly state unambiguously that an appeal to authority is sometimes a fallacious argument - usually where the authority is not an authority, or the claim is disputed by other authorities. An appeal to an authority where the claim is both uncontested and the authority in question is an expert in the subject is not a logical fallacy - it is a legitimate argument. Some of the prose of the current article (outside the lede) actually supports and explains this - in particular it makes clear two things - it has historically been been considered both a legitimate and illegitimate argument (due to the above) and that currently it is usually framed as 'argument from unqualified/unreliable authority'. Really the lede needs 5 minutes work and a bit of tweaking in the article to frame that it is not always a fallacy and job done. Sadly the people intent on keeping this listed as a logicial fallacy *always* have been vocal and unmoving on the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• I've just read the "debate". The perceived "personal attacks" are nothing more than an exasperated editor (MjolnirPants), tired of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. They are not directed at any other editor in particular and therefore not a personal attack. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG of Doom. Kleuske (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Basically, I read where Chris Dubey used some extremely poor and uninformed logic to dispute a statement I made. I referred to this logic as "fundamentally flawed and ignorant" in a way that should have been clear that I was referring to the logic he used, and not to himself as a person (I'll happily explain what's so fundamentally flawed and ignorant about it if anyone actually wants me to, but I suspect no-one cares so I won't bother for now). I directly and explicitly stated I was referring to the logic used. Chris, instead of parsing the sentence in the only semantically viable way, instead took it as a personal attack. Since Chris obviously felt personally attacked, I then struck the comment. I also pointed out that he appealed to his own authority to support his claim that appealing to authority is a fallacy. Chris then proceeded to pound his chest about his qualifications, to which I responded by pointing out that no reliable sources agree with him, and that he had incorrectly parsed my statement about his logic. I also pointed out explicitly that I'd already struck it. Chris then posted this complaint, and Only in death commented a pretty accurate summary of the content issue. I really don't see the need for this. I haven't commented since I pointed out that I'd struck the sentence he took offense to, I did strike the sentence which offended Chris, and Chris' involvement in this discussion was to argue that the article should not accurately reflect the views of reliable sources, but rather his own personal view. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• This is a long-running content dispute over whether Appeal to Authority is always a fallacy or whether it is sometimes a valid argument. I won't say what my opinion about who is right regarding the content dispute is (this is not the place for that), but I will ask for some admin eyes on the article and the editors working on it, with warnings issued as appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• In reply to MjolnirPants, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted certain statements of yours, but I'm fairly certain you've also misinterpreted statements of mine. Now you are accusing me of Fallacy of composition in a way that twists my words and opinions, as well as misinterpreting my declaration of having a philosophy degree as an automatic appeal to my own authority, which I never made. Instead of analyzing my actual opinions/meanings, you appear to be using Straw man interpretations of my statements. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/put-words-into-someone-s-mouth Chris Dubey (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Dubey: Two things:

1. John Quiggin already explained this to you on the talk page.
2. This is not the place to discuss content disputes.
3. The page is not on my watchlist, and I meant what I said about being done with it. I really don't care what you do to the page, and my only regret is the moment of weakness that led me to look at the talk page to begin with. So go on back there and make it say whatever you want: those of us who have actually looked at what the reliable sources have to say will always know that it's inaccurate.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

1. He did? I saw he tried to explain something, but it didn't conclude anything regarding my actual meaning, and my original example that he worded into his own example still is not negated by his argument.

2. I'm not discussing content disputes. I repeat: Stop putting words in my mouth, stop misinterpreting me to fit your conceptions. Your accusations which I noted are evidence related to the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks.

3. Since I haven't actually made any edits to the article, you are forecasting my behavior before it occurs. Beware of Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Chris Dubey (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I recently posted here about an issue regarding what I perceived to be personal attacks (condescending language and accusations) on the talk page for Argument from authority. Yesterday, I did some searching for new sources for the article, found one I consider to be a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards, and did my best to cite it properly for the article. My edit was undone with little justification by User:Kleuske. I responded on the talk page just now.

This article has been contentious and I am further requesting that administrators keep an eye on it for misconduct. Thank you. Chris Dubey (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Can people please employ civility, collegial discourse, assumptions of good faith and mutual intelligence, and dispute resolution? You know, good old-fashioned Wikipedia values? -- Softlavender (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am trying. I reverted in the spirit of WP:BRD since a rather obscure term (at best) was given WP:UNDUE weight and weighed in on the TP. Kleuske (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I am discussing the article now with Kleuske. The source (and citation) that had been removed had nothing to do with the obscure term, although apparently that had been removed too in the same revert. We are now discussing a different source that I added afterward to show the usage of the term. Chris Dubey (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we close this thread? I think everyone is in agreement that more admins at that page would be a good thing (preferably admins who have some experience with philosophy and logic), and this thread is turning into an extension of the article's talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Chris Dubey needs to observe WP:BRD and not edit war over the status quo ante when his BOLD changes are contested or reverted. He needs to get consensus first. Since he's already apparently scared away one knowledgeable editor (MjolnirPants), I think it's high time he stepped back before a WP:BOOMERANG ensues here on this ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

BLP vandalism by SPAs: Wikipedia Sovereign

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

---

As expected, we've recently had substantial vandalism by what appear to be both Trump and Clinton supporters at Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. The most recent one is a newly minted SPA, Wikipedia Sovereign, who has been making massive insertions of content making the affirmative claim that Trump is the supernatural reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.[291] (While the nature of this article makes it reasonable to include similar information if there is a popular theory Trump is the supernatural reincarnation of Hitler or whomever, if sourced to RS, we obviously can't present this as a statement of fact, nor can we do it sans sources.) The Wikipedia Sovereign SPA has also repeatedly inserted the following -

• "An extraordinary interdisciplinary consensus of psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses, neurologists, therapists, psychometricians, and other mental health professionals have expressed their worries that, in their professional opinion, Trump suffers from a serious, disabling mental illness-- of an order of magnitutde greater than the usual low-level mental disturbance required to enter politics" [292]
• "Critics of the theory point to two salient differences between the two men. First, Hitler was a much better speaker and rhetorician than Trump, who speaks and writes at a level that would be considered average were he still in the 5th grade, possessing a rudimentary vocabulary of no more than 1000words, primarily adjectives like "terriffic!" And "disgraceful!", which Trump is wont to employ as full sentences. Secondly, Hitler was a military veteran before seeking office, having served in the Austrian army in WWI; by contrast Trump was a draft dodger ..." [293]

- all of which, again, are unsourced (he's tacked on a random collection of websites as raw links, though, as an apparent effort to make these appear sourced).

Notecardforfree and myself have attempted to revert these edits, however, as this is under 1RR restriction there's not much more that can be done. It's received the usual warnings from Johnuniq, myself, and others on its talk page.Wikipedia Sovereign is not the only SPA that has become active on this article, he/she is just the subject of this specific notice (WikiSovereign is actually almost certainly a sock of a specific established editor but there's a weeks-long backlog at SPI at the moment so that's a dead-end). I'll file reports on all the others that exist, or will soon come into existence, as time permits. LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If these are BLP violations, and they seem to be just that, then I doubt 1RR restrictions apply. And I doubt they apply to blatant vandalism either. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:3RRNO, exemptions are made for clear vandalism and/or BLP violations. Blackmane (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

While true, I don't really have any incentive to risk that this could be interpreted as something other than vandalism. The axe of justice on WP is swift and without mercy, so better safe than sorry. LavaBaron (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it isnt vandalism. Vandalism is the intentional defacement of an article. The editor is adding material that they think is relevant. While it is arguable that claiming Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler is a conspiracy theory or just plan crazy, when you start an article named 'Conspiracy theories of the 2016 election' dont be surprised when it attracts all sorts of cranks looking to put their own crazy crap in there. Currently at AFD if anyone feels the urge to get rid of this rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Topic banned. I've topic banned Wikipedia Sovereign indefinitely from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC).
  • Blocked. That was overly hasty, as they were only recently alerted to the discretionary sanctions. On second thoughts, I have instead blocked them for 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC).

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

user:Devilfan30

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

---

During a period of almost three months (June-August) user:Devilfan30 has been warned 3 times (cf. User talk page at 13:14, 20 August 2016) after disruptive editing (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing):

• editing did not appear constructive
• copyright violation
• engaged in an edit war
• added defamatory content to Wikipedia

The last incident (20 August 2016) regarding the article Barack Obama caused attention outside Wikipedia, which is likely to damage the reputation of Wikipedia: Hey Yahoo, Barack Obama Is Not the Founder of ISIS. --ThT (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, if you are proposing a community ban, that generally belongs at AN not ANI (as they are currently indef blocked) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Fuzheado, just shortly before this report, so ThT may well not have known about it when they typed it up. Indef is surely good enough. I know some people like the "community ban" better in general, and sometimes there's a point to it, but in a case like this it would IMO amount to using up editors' time for little benefit. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC).

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

85.202.42.2 makes death threats towards my children

The following discussion is closed. 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 85.202.42.2 last night threatened on my talk page to burn my children.

diff 1 diff 2

The wording is: "gonna burn your children soon. wait till december; dont thank me for this gift. Liqa Maddiq".

Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

They are already blocked, please follow up with WMF.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

note for the record: The WMF Emergency team did indeed get this report and a reviewing. Jalexander--WMF 07:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Threats to User:NgYShung

The following discussion is closed. 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:Countyjail is making a "charges" threat (sort of legal threat, idk) to me (User:NgYShung) for creating a WP:FUTURE and non-notable movie that seemed coined: Chubby 2.0. I tagged the article for WP:A11 because I cannot find the article anywhere from Google (and yet he called this "vandalism"). The user also created some inappropriate articles which were got deleted. Regards, NgYShung ^huh? 10:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pages deleted, blocked as NOTHERE. At least one was a blatant hoax. I think he was referring to AIV in his message to you instead of a legal threat, but it doesn't matter now anyway. Katie^talk 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

A user talk page is salted preventing the posting of warnings

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

---

Please see Special:Contributions/Vashikaranlovemarriagespecialists this user is a currently active vandal, but because the user talk page is salted I cannot give the required warnings - or even notify the user of this post. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That account is already blocked. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It might be now, but it was not when the complaint was filed. --Elektrik Fanne 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Following up

The question remains how/why a user talk page would be salted? What reason could justify salting a user talk without also blocking the user at the same time? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are seeing - the log for User talk:Vashikaranlovemarriagespecialists does not indicate that it has ever been protected. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see it wasnt? Until the user was blocked, both user & user-talk should have been createable by any editor. (After the block, obviously admins only). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The user was blocked at 11:07, they were prevented from editing their talk page at 11:20. The talk page has never been protected apart from the fact the editor themselves can't now edit it. Black Kite (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The title blacklist (MediaWiki:Titleblacklist), which has an entry which reads:

        .*vashikaran.*  # Indian astrology/magic advertising

I don't know whether the title blacklist extends to user talk: too. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the titleblacklist is the problem. The talk page here does have a title that is setting off the titleblacklist, compare User talk:Vashikaranlovemarriagespecialists/rock - notice the warning message there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

So, if I understand the situation correctly, an editor could (innocently or otherwise) register a username that conflicts with a blacklist entry and nobody would know there's a problem until an attempt is made to create the user page or user talk page. Perhaps this needs to be referred to WP:VPT for a solution? -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident - continued non-collaboration

Welcome to ANI #6 for the same user. It appears that just as soon as the last ANI went without action and was archived, the user came back and made a series of edits] to a major article which were reverted wholesale because the changes needed to be discussed. As can be seen from the edit summary, the reverter requested discussion, and as usual, nothing happened. We literally just had a discussion about this here, and despite all the "I'm sorry for the inconvenience" garbage, nothing in the editor's behavior has changed. I don't know what the underlying problem is with the editor, but it's gone on long enough. The constant need for other editors to almost universally revert this user's edits means the editing behavior is basically indistinguishable from vandalism at this point. The editor has been warned, the editor has continued, and the editor needs to be indeffed. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a bold edit to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes - bold. Excuse me, I introduced that infobox to begin with. I have accounted for much its further growth until its current state. There is now a consensus for it. If you ask, most users would probably say that the article is better with it than it was without it. This is all quite illustrative and coherent with the pattern of your communication with at least me (others I don't know, since your interest in my edits aren't precisely passionately mutually reflected): Frankly, you don't give a damn about any positive contributions (i. e. the infobox et al), but pay unproportatione attention to minor details which you deem unconstructuve (i. e. proposed couple of edits on minor variables in said infobox). If it's tiring? Yes, sometimes. Chicbyaccident (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: Rereading your comments I have to say this ANI is utter nonsense and should be closed accordingly. If not closed it should remain open only to consider a boomerang against you. This is a bold edit that is being reverted. I do not see the fact that they did not discuss these changes before hand as a justification for this revert. I don't see the fact that they were reverted as a justification for banning them as everyone on wikipedia gets reverted. And your contention that there's an issue since they have not went to discuss on the talk page that revert is just pure bullshit. Maybe they are considering how to propose those minor changes. May they have opted not to pursue those changes. So what if they haven't. They don't have to.What they did not do is get into an edit war after that revert. There's no actual problem.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeated COPYVIO edits over more than two years

Portlannd (talk · contribs) has not made a whole lot of substantial prose additions to the mainspace, but when he does they always seem to be copy-pasted from elsewhere. See here and here. Three articles he wrote were speedied in April 2014, January 2015 and June 2016 due to copyright concerns, and @Diannaa: was essentially ignored after telling him that Wikipedia additions need to be in the editor's own words. Additionally, some of the copy-pasted text was grammatically wrong, and if Portlannd was unable to recognize this and edit the text appropriately I wonder whether he is even capable of composing original prose in English or even understanding the repeated requests made on his talk page to stop copy-pasting other people's text. Almost all of his (very limited) non-mainspace edits have been in either Bosnian (I think?) or very poor (as in, possibly machine-translated) English.

I'm not sure how to deal with this. Those of his talk page edits that I have read make him look like a nationalist POV-pusher, but assuming this is just a misunderstanding then his minor formatting/infobox edits to the mainspace might be constructive. Maybe a TBAN on "mainspace edits consisting of full sentences as opposed to isolated words, to be repealed once he has indicated that he understands Wikipedia's copyright policies"? If the community decides that my assumption is wrong, then an indefinite block might be called for.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Changed my mind per other evidence below. Portlannd obviously knew what he was doing, and should be blocked until he demonstrates a willingness to refrain from plagiarism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, Hijiri 88, don't you think your revert at Vukovar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a bad case of WP:PANIC? How far back did you revert? Just looking at that diff, it must be some 100-odd revisions, and you didn't even hint which part of the text was a copyvio, and in which revision it was introduced. And I can't find which Portlannd's revision could have introduced it, as the article history shows his typical pattern of image replacing, without edit summaries. Since the alleged source, [294], contains mostly pre-20th history of the city, the copyvio must have been restricted to its History section.
I happen to be acquainted with Portlannd's work, and he has only ever worked with photos on all articles I have on my watchlist. I find his photo work a tad overzealous and more galleristic than encyclopedic, but mostly harmless. No such user (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, found it. It was this long batch of edits from September 2015, introducing a lot of material nicked from turizamvukovar.hr. Striking the above. We seem to have a problem... No such user (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@No such user: Sorry. Edit conflict. I know this no longer really applies specifically to you, as you have stricken the above, but I put a fair bit of work into gathering the exact pieces of text that were copy-pasted, and it's a good illustration, so I'm posting it anyway. You can ignore the first line below.

Can you point to a significant piece of prose that I reverted out that was not copy-pasted from the website I linked?

Text samples that were clearly COPYVIOS

The text The Avars were present in wider surroundings of Vukovar for more than two centuries establishing the so-called Avar Khaganate in Baranja with Zmajevac, Osijek and Bijelo Brdo. The downfall of Khaganate, after 220 years of Avars' domination, happened when the Carolinian Empire's eastern border was set on the Danube River during the reign of Ludwig of Germany. The Germans and the Slavs probably colonized the Lower Pannonia after 846 when the prince Pribina, a Franconian vassal, got in possession of some hundred-serf villages beside the river Vuka. was taken directly from the external site, which is dated 1999/2005. The 150 years of Ottoman rule caused many changes in the Vukovar region. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent led his army armies attacking the former Hungarian-Croatian State, following the Danube and passing on his way Ilok, Vukovar and Osijek, to win the Battle of Mohács in 1525. Vukovar lost its strategic importance but remained as an important trade and craft center on a major traffic route. Vukovar had several town wards, a number of mosques and Turkish baths. At the end of the 17th century, the town's population numbered about 3,000 inhabitants. The indigenous Catholic Croatian and Hungarian population suffered greatly under Turkish rule.Vukovar was liberated in 1687. is also clearly derived from (to the point of plagiarism, even if it is not strictly speaking a straight copy-paste job) The 150 years of Ottoman rule caused many changes in the Vukovar region. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent lead Turkish armies attacking the former Hungarian-Croatian State following the Danube passing on his way Ilok, Vukovar and Osijek winning a great victory on the Field of Mohacs in 1525. Thus Vukovar lost its strategic importance but remained as an important trade and craft center on a major traffic route. Vukovar had several town wards, a number of mosques, Turkish baths, inns and schools for about 3,000 of its inhabitants before Turks withdraw. At the same time Ilok became an important Turkish administrative and military center that was predominantly inhabited by Moslems. The indigenous Catholic Croatian and Hungarian population suffered greatly under Turkish rule; the Franciscans had tried hard to keep the Catholics together. The Orthodox Vlachs came to this region in the wake of Turks as their auxiliary troops but remained here after Vukovar was liberated in 1687 I didn't notice it until I looked just now, but Between 1941 and 1944, Vukovar was part of the Independent State of Croatia. During the Second World War and with the formation of Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in April 1941 Vukovar became the center of the large Vuka County. Jakob Ellicker, a lawyer, became the County's Zupan and Tomislav Bulat was appointed Bata factory manager trying hard to keep factory's production of shoes and other rubber products at a satisfactory level. was taken directly from this 2008 webpage: Between 1941 and 1944, Vukovar was part of the Independent State of Croatia, combined with the same source as above The population subsistence worsened during the Second World War and with the formation of Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in April 1941 Vukovar became the center of the large Vuka County. Jakob Ellicker, a lawyer, became the County's Zupan and Tomislav Bulat was appointed Bata factory manager trying hard to keep factory's production of shoes and other rubber products at a satisfactory level. The text Croats took over the City of Vukovar administration and in the towns Ilok and Sid but the conflicts continued between Croats and Serbs in Vukovar impairing peaceful life between them. In 1940 Gjuro Szentgyoergy, a Hungarian, was appointed as the mayor of Vukovar and with the help of well organized German minority he managed to increase the town's significance and merits. The port was revitalized for export of wheat, cattle, hemp and wood mainly to Germany. is clearly copied from Then the Croats took over the City of Vukovar administration and in the towns Ilok and Sid but the conflicts continued between Croats and Serbs in Vukovar impairing peaceful life between them. In 1940 Gjuro Szentgyoergy, a Hungarian, was appointed as the mayor of Vukovar and with the help of well organized German minority he managed to increase the town's significance and merits. The port was revitalized for export of wheat, cattle, hemp and wood mainly to Germany. in the croationhistory.net source. The following paragraph The Ustasha authorities decided to expropriate all lands given to Serbian volunteers and settlers expelling all that came to the Vukovar region after 1918. Part of the Serb population rebelled against these stringent measures and several Serbs were executed after the murder of Otto Hoyer, who was a Ustasha commissioner, in Bobota on 25 June 1941. The Syrmian Front was opened in October 1944. is clearly plagiarized from The Ustasha authorities decided to expropriate all lands given to Serbian volunteers and settlers expelling all that came to the Vukovar region after 1918. Part of the Serb population rebelled against these stringent measures and several Serbs were executed after the murder of Otto Hoyer, who was a Ustasha commissioner, in Bobota on 25 June 1941. New officer's appointments did not improve the situation at all and the national and ethnic relations deteriorated in a surge of terrorism and indiscriminate killings. Armed guards controlled all people's movements around and in Vukovar and Borovo in order to keep the factory production going on. The Srijem front-line opened in October 1944

I noticed the problem because I saw a whole bunch of rev-delled edits on the Serbia article, made by a user who had apparently been here too long to be continuing to make good-faith mistakes regarding copyright, and when I checked the user's other edits I noticed the only other recent substantial addition of text was apparently also copy-pasted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I add, that, apparently as of 8 days ago (Kolovoz = August), Portlannd has been blocked from the hr. Wiki for a period of three months for "ignoriranje uputa: recidiv" or basically ignoring instructions and they have also been blocked from commons for a year for uploading copyrighted images despite warnings. It seems pertinent that this user has, even on the wiki for their own language, managed to receive a long (is 3 months a long block?) block for failure to listen and accept guidance. I'll check for block logs No blocks have ever been recorded against the editor on .sr, .sh and .bs wiki's. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that he actually did fix some of the grammatical errors in the text he stole ("led his army armies" includes an accidental repetition, but is clearly superior to wrong-tense "lead Turkish armies"; the passive transitive "The Syrmian Front was opened" was a carefully constructed alteration of, although not necessarily superior to "The Srijem front-line opened"; he also fixed the most substantial grammatical error in "The population subsistence worsened during the Second World War and with the formation of Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in April 1941 Vukovar became the center of the large Vuka County." by removing the first four words). This inclines me to think that this user probably has good enough English to understand the repeated COPYVIO warnings, and is well aware of what he is doing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I quickly scanned all of his contributions, checking only those with substantial text added. This is more or less the complete list of copyvios, which is reasonably short, thank God:

I probably missed a few diffs, but not by much. The rest is mostly table, infobox and image work (and he received a fair amount of criticism on the number of images he adds to the articles). He is probably not beyond redemption, but some stern warnings would be in place, at minimum. No such user (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As copyright violation is such a serious matter, I have indefinitely blocked Portlannd until we can get a reasonable explanation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Please someone tell me if I have correctly translated "ignoriranje uputa: recidiv" as "recidivist instruction-ignoring". EEng 12:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• EEng, yup, you are correct. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Briefly checking his contributions on Serbian wiki: [305] nicked from [306], (16 February 2016). No such user (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds of unsourced edits to TV subject articles

• 174.105.181.77 (talk · contribs)

All the additions may or may not be factually correct, but of this we're quite sure: nothing has been sourced. This may require a backhoe to clean out all the trivia and unreferenced tidbits. 2601:188:1:AEA0:D501:5048:8A42:6CE2 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I dunno. People write a lot of stuff here that's not sourced. Tagging is an option, or looking up the sources yourself (if you have the time and inclination) is another. A quick check of this person's contributions looks like typical newbie stuff -- material which is not ref'd but is otherwise an improvement and most likely accurate. I'm not sure that hitting this person with a big honking "go away" template, rather than engaging her as one human being to another, is called for here. At any rate maybe you've scared her off so "problem" solved perhaps. Herostratus (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Tigrayans

Problem with user Otakrem who repeatedly ruined the work of others, added the template Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources where there are the authoritative sources in the section Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people page Tigrayans, I ask the restoration of the page and the user's warning not to vandalize--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

tell me Sennaitgebremariam I have not vandalised the Tigrayan articles' "Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people" Section. I have read the sources you provide and they do not make the claim that you made, therefore the entries could be deleted. So far I have given plenty of opportunities for you to provide reliable sources that back up your claim. I think I have been fair by not outright deleting it over and over again, because I did not want to participate in an Edit war of which you were warned for doing. Lets have the discussion moderated by an Administrator, because so far 3 wiki editors have disagreed with your edit. Fitrawri and EthiopianHabesha, and myself ofcourse.Otakrem (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

All I am going to say is that it is highly disruptive to add more than a few tags to a section. Instead, you should tag the entire section for review. Now, I am going to find how I can fix the tagging easily, without reverting to this or this revision. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello TheVoidwalker, is there a way to specify or atleast link to a talkpage discussion regarding the "Discuss" or "Disputed" tags? For example, the tag is disputing the "Aksumite kings" listed under the "Notable Tigrayans" and "Notable Tigrinyas"?Otakrem (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

But you're saying you will be reported using multiple accounts with a suspicious use of Sockpuppet--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Accusing a user of sockpuppetry is a serious accusation. One that I strongly suggest you support with diffs. However, I have currently removed the overuse of maintenance tags, and replaced them with an overall {{ref-improve}} tag, however, I am starting to think it would be best to tag the sections with {{disputed}}. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Starting to question if tell me Sennaitgebremariam has the English competency to edit here. --Tarage (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Ambidibody

Just a quick note, User:Ambidibody is ("was" since I locked the account) User:Sad9721 who is User:Mediolanum and all those 151.40.0.0/17 IPs infesting Italy-related topics, for example Special:Contributions/151.40.55.202 and Special:Contributions/151.40.1.132. @MorbidEntree, TechnicianGB, Bishonen, and Paine Ellsworth: --Vituzzu (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I suspected of him at 1st instance. In the description of his editions (for example in List of European countries by average wage) is writing in capital letters and very similar that was doing the banned user Sad9721, which appears to be a sock puppet of this user too. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand, Vituzzu. Locked the account? Ambidibody isn't blocked, and you're not an admin. Anyway, after checking the Mediolanum SPI and this, I've pinged the editor known as User:JamesBWatson. Bishonen | talk 08:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC). Adding: Oh, sorry! I see Ambidibody is globally locked. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC).

Yep Bishonen, in our weird jargon block is the local stuff, while lock is the global one, from a technical point of view the main difference is the second one cannot (still) trigger autoblocks. Anyway he's back as Special:Contributions/151.40.79.4, User:Curiatii and User:Trinacriacricket. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Need an admin to open off wiki channel

The following discussion is closed. 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 there an admin with some free time (5 minutes) on his hands who can open an off wiki channel of communication? Preferably facebook or something similar. I would like to talk about something for five minutes. YES! I am aware that the "appropriate" way to go about this is to email the Oversight guys but I want to talk to an admin first, and if there is anyway that I can talk to one onsite without alerting anyone following my contributions and the ani, I would be able to do so. Now I know that people usually embellish what they are saying but I want to be crystal clear about the fact that I want to talk about a very damaging problem. Please be kind enough to give me five minutes. TouristerMan (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• TouristerMan, you can email most any specific administrator of your choice via the "Email this user" link on the left column of their userpage. You might also look into WP:IRC. As FIP noted in his close (which I have re-opened in order to present this advice), ANI is for reporting incidents, so if you'd like the attention of admins beyond the advice I just gave, I suggest posting at WP:AN rather than here at ANI, or going directly to WP:OVERSIGHT since you mentioned that. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Turning myself in

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

---

It has just been pointed out to me that I have perpetrated 8 years of continuous vandalism. I'll come quietly. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's good. I thought we'd have to send "some guys" after you...   Aloha27  talk  13:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it's about time, Mr Ollie, your sins... are many, but, seeing as we have no evidence of your crimes, yet!, we're going to have to let you go on procedural grounds. Have a nice day. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This requires more drama before we can close it.--Savonneux (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a buzz-kill (normally I love this stuff, on user talk pages and the like), but I don't think ANI in late August is the right place for tongue-in-cheek satire. The IP's comment was somewhat WP:DICKish, but if a block is what is called for this hardly seems like the most effective way to go about it... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked your IP friend, MrOllie, only for 48 hours since it's dynamic. And you yourself have been sentenced to community service... oh, wait... you're already doing that, right? Bah. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

To me it looks really ridiculous when an IP with 43 edits, most of them probably not made by them, goes and trolls someone who's been on Wikipedia for 8 years. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 14:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As per the red box at the top of this page, you must notify yourself that this discussion is taking place. --Elektrik Fanne 14:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's needlessly pedantic. Better, maybe, is to have said "refer this to AIV next time", but it's not big deal. Anyway, you missed this. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Recent behavior by Ghoul flesh

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ghoul flesh has been making personal attacks in his edit summaries.

1. 20:54, August 14, 2016 (UTC)
2. 23:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Side note - An investigation for this user, is also under way for edit warring here.

Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

I've left ANI notice on their talk page. — RainFall 06:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The second item is stale and not all that bad. The first, though, is fresh and a clearcut personal attack. This editor seems to misunderstand the principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Yes, we have articles about highly controversial topics. That does not mean that an editor is perfectly free to call another editor a "moronic fuckface". I suggest a block until the editor agrees to abandon such disruptive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Definitely think the first diff is a clear cut personal attack but as Cullen328 stated above, I don't think the second one is as clear cut. I think that the user is clearly not assuming good faith on these edits as well. I have some concerns as well based on the edit warring discussion about the users ability to maintain a neutral point of view, but I will reserve those concerns as they have not yet proven to be an issue. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• I have issued a 31-hour block for that first example, and I'm prepared to escalate should anything like that be repeated once this one expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• It seems like Ghoul flesh has also demonstrated WP:NOTHERE behavior, as he/she made this aggressive comment questioning his inclusion on WP:AN3RR, even though he/she has made comments ([307] [308] [309] [310]) on it before making the aforementioned post, so he/she should already have an idea why he/she is on WP:AN3RR in the first place. Parsley Man (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I have to agree, this is a relatively light ban. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• But is it suitable, since he also demonstrated the WP:NOTHERE behavior? Parsley Man (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm very surprised it wasn't either much longer or a NOTHERE indef. GAB^gab 01:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Same here. Parsley Man (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Upon getting out of his block, Ghoul flesh has failed to assume good faith on my part, demonstrating WP:NOTHERE behavior on Malik Shabazz's talk page ([311]) and making baseless accusations of bias ([312]). Not sure what kind of punishment this requires, but I for one am not convinced he learned much from his 31-hour block, let alone annoyed by his behavior. Parsley Man (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with this assessment, Ghoul flesh has definitely exhibited further WP:NOTHERE behavior. Parsley Man notified prior editors so they could review the changes and good faith should have been demonstrated. Boing! said Zebedee placed the original block; pinging to notify of the new concerns. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• I would like to clarify that the editors I notified were those who would've disagreed with the material I was contesting. But this did not give him any right to exhibit that kind of reaction. In fact, I would say that he was perfectly free to do the same with editors he would've trusted to even the playing field. I certainly wouldn't have held it against him. Parsley Man (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not the only one that accused you of bias. I find it hilarious that you're gonna report me for that. Quis separabit? was exactly right. You're oblivious to the fact that WP:POV goes both ways. You should be blocked if anyone else, for your tireless reverting of information on the article that you simply don't like. Ghoul flesh talk 03:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The difference is that you have been warned about this kind of aggressive, WP:NOTHERE behavior a couple of days before and got blocked for it. Now you return, and clearly there's still a problem if someone (me) reports you again and another user backs up this report. Parsley Man (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment and support for a longterm block: How this user has contributed for over a year without figuring out how utterly unacceptable this behaviour is (let alone without facing additional blocks) is quite beyond me, but this recourse to personal attacks and offensive profanity to underscore aggressive, caustic and insulting sentiments needs to be met with an immediate community response. The absolute lack of any respect for WP:Civility (a pillar policy) is so profound here, it amounts to a basic social competency issue.

Based on "just" the diffs here, I have considerable doubt this user has a temperament which will allow them to contribute productively to a collaborative project like this without establishing a WP:Battleground wherever they go, but right now their perspective is so far out of whack with community standards, they can't even see what is wrong with their behaviour, as evidenced by comments such as this: Wikipedia is not censored. I can call you whatever I'd like." Actually, no, you absolutely cannot, Ghoul flesh; Wikipedia content is not censored, but there are numerous behavioural policies which restrict what you can and cannot call another contributor on this project (for starters, you need to immediately read WP:Civility the provisions of which are amongst the most basic and non-negotiable conditions of participating on Wikipedia). If you really made it this long here without having this pointed out to you shines an unfavourable light on our own current standards for confronting incivil behaviour in a timely fashion, but let me make this plain now: if you want to contribute here, you are expected to treat others with respect and an even temper, no matter how right you think you are, no matter how wrong you think they are, and regardless of how powerfully you feel about your reasons for being here (which seems largely to be about righting great wrongs).

Because this user's behaviour fails to comport so completely with basic community standards, because of the recent previous block, and because of the WP:IDHT attitude/inability to acknowledge the issues and promise to work on them, I don't see any alternative but a community sanction in the form of a block, and I think the minimum contemplated here ought to be two months. And if we see so much as a single "moronic fuckface" type comment at any point thereafter, we shouldn't hesitate to move directly to an indef. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Update - It appears Ghoul flesh has calmed down and gravitated away from the situation. He is now working devotedly on presidential elections in South Dakota and there doesn't seem to be any problems there at the moment. Parsley Man (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Two Month Ban

Per my comments immediately above, I propose an immediate ban for repeated, blatant, and deeply hostile WP:Personal attacks, WP:Battleground behaviour, a general lack of comportment with WP:Civility and a steadfast refusal to listen to the community's concerns about these disruptive behaviours, or even begin to familiarize with/internalize basic behavioural policies. Given the combativeness and level of animosity in this instance, I suggest a two month ban, perhaps with an option to appeal after a month if Ghoul flesh can present a considered statement to the community demonstrating that they understand how far they have departed from expected behavioural norms for this project with a promise to correct this behaviour moving forward. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support a shorter block, but with a pageban (durations up to the discretion of the closing admin). At the very least, it seems clear that they cannot collaborate cordially in this subject area. See also: "Grow up" GAB^gab 13:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support a shorter block. Imposing a two-month ban now (especially after he just got out of a 31-hour block) seems a bit extreme at the moment for me. If he comes out of his block and continues to exhibit such behavior, then yes, a two-month ban would be appropriate then. Parsley Man (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Parsley, as you're one of the people who has had to directly engage with GF (and may have to again) I'm inclined to defer to your perspective; if you have specific ban length or alternative sanction you feel would be appropriate, I can partially strike and amend the proposal above. Or if you don't feel comfortable suggesting one, we can just leave it to further comments or the closing admin to sort out the details. If we continue to see battleground behaviour though, I definitely think the next block needs to be scaled up to a few weeks at a minimum; the profanity-laced PA's we've seen here are beyond the pall, and there's not been so much as a single word from GF so far to show that he understands how badly his misunderstanding of our behavioural guidelines were (i.e. "I can call you whatever I want"/"moronic fuckface"). I truly feel we'd just be postponing the inevitable (that is, the next ANI discussion) if we defer this without some assurance from GF that they will work on their behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what I have in mind, though. I'll just leave it up to the input of others. Parsley Man (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as a two month ban. Due to the continued behavior, especially after a block just came off, I think it is adequate and that Parsley Man's proposal would be too short to impress upon the importance of following the wikipedia policies. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I kinda like this guy. Also I'm like sorry and stuff and realize my inappropriate behavior... whether you proceed with a further ban or not, my behavior should no longer be an issue. Ghoul flesh • talk 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I sure hope so. Parsley Man (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that. GAB^gab 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Recommend a close

One way or the other, I think this discussion has run its course. On the one hand, there are four !votes, plus other perspectives, which recommend some form of sanction for blatant personal attacks. On the other, the issue has grown a little stale, without further disruption (at has been reported here anyway) and Ghoul flesh has promised to be mindful of civil conduct moving forward. That promise feels like it lacks depth and perhaps also sincerity to me, but I could be wrong, and arguably the best solution here is to provide GF WP:ROPE and the opportunity to prove he can argue content in a civil fashion. In short, I feel that neither a closure with sanction nor one without sanction would be inappropriate here, but I do think it's time to put the matter to rest, provided nobody has any further disruption to report. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block limitations

Filipz123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123/Archive

This user is a particularly persistent sockpuppet hoaxer and vandal who, since about mid-May, has been hopping about IPs which can be narrowed down to two consecutive /20 ranges. By my math a /20 is 4,094 addresses. Our contribs tool can only pull up edits for a /24, but of the several that I've checked, almost all recent edits are this user, or else just plain vandalism. While we can easily identify their edits and revert them, they have attacked a large number of articles (probably in the 1000s by this point), and in the time it takes to notify an admin to block an individual IP, they've moved on to another address and continued their vandalism. You can see from the SPI archive that they have only rarely edited from outside this range and/or attempted to create new accounts. The user behind the edits has also threatened me personally off-wiki, and I'm probably not the only one.

My question for this board is: at what point does preventing ongoing disruption from an identifiable IP range outweigh the possibility of cutting off potential constructive contributions from that range? Are two /20 blocks too many addresses? And if not, how long are we willing to block such a range for?

As a side note, an edit filter was created to catch this user's edits, but I don't believe it has been turned on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. At the SPI archive you've given us:

• 24.114.48.0/20 (range contributions for roughly the last 30 days here)
• 24.114.64.0/20 (range contributiosns here)

That's 4096 addresses each. Personally, I have no problem with a short rangeblock if there's enough disruption. So: how much collateral damage is there? Are all the recent edits from the sockmaster? Make me a case kind of like you were doing an LTA. I see the Tesla edits, but what else does he target? Katie^talk 23:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to the tool, I wasn't aware of it. It looks like your search is configured right but it's still catching edits from outside the ranges, and it will take me a bit of time to go through them anyway. I suppose if I'm going to analyze all these edits and list all the pages they've vandalized (it's much, much wider than just Tesla) then I might as well go ahead and create an LTA; I'll think about it, and the tool will help. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I figured it was a lot wider than that, and I know the guy has been giving everybody fits. I want to know his pattern to make sure I get a wide enough range without causing too much damage. There may be some, and if there is we'll just have to deal with it at UTRS and ACC. Let me know either here or on my talk page when you've got more info. :-) Katie^talk 12:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk page abuse at cosmology related talk pages (revisited)

As promised here to KrakatoaKatie:

Talk page abuse at cosmology related talk pages by IP-hopper:

• 2a02:587:4103:d00:382b:b48b:7771:45b3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 23 Aug (new)
• 2A02:587:4112:2300:A16B:26A9:ED95:C4DA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 7 Aug - resulted in a range block
• 2A02:587:4112:2300:F4CA:C186:EEC9:6C89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 5 Aug
• 2A02:587:4112:2300:D002:1EA0:421E:EE98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 5 Aug
• 2A02:587:4109:BF00:C4A2:387E:F301:C52F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 1 Aug to 4 Aug
• 85.73.219.77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 29 Jul
• 2A02:587:4111:ED00:28F0:5889:6644:3F6D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 28 Jul

- DVdm (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• All from an ISP in Greece. Can't do anything about the older, stale ones; he obviously switched IP addresses after August 7. If the new one continues, we can block the 2A02:587:4103:d00::/64, and that may be how we have to do this, blocking /64s from time to time. Good work. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrakatoaKatie (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)