Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
This doesn't seem to be going anywhere except for continuous arguing that should not be made in an ANI discussion. PogingJuan has promised to not edit Rodrigo Duterte for some time. Both editors have requested a closure for the thread, and continuous arguing will lead to more serious issues,as it seems to be dragging on and on. WikiPancake✉📖07:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PogingJuan (talk·contribs) has been repeatedly posting messages on my talk page, and pinging me on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte and on his own talk page, and directly addressing me in article edit summaries, ironically accusing me of "harassment", "bullying" and so on.
It was annoying at first, but now it's starting to look threatening. It apparently got worse after I twice removed an out-of-place citation he kept trying to add to the article.[1][2][3] He doesn't seem to understand why it was inappropriate. Thesetwo are particularly worrying. I would give more diffs, but literally every single edit he's made in the past two weeks has been problematic.
Speaking as an editor, I can see why you reverted the two sources out, as they weren't related to what they were supposedly citing. It would be interesting to hear why why PogingJuan (talk·contribs) thinks removing them was so egregious as to template you multiple times. Dennis Brown - 2¢14:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: With humility, I've discussed it clearly to User:Hijiri88, but seems he didn't understand or even listen my side on including the sentence on the article (I've added a citation, supporting it), that was not clearly sourced at first. I think, it's because he thinks that I hate him on siding with User:Signedzzz (I have actually looked it as lawyering as Hijiri88 keeps on explaining while Signedzzz do not), whom I and User:RioHondo have problems about the allegations of death threat and NPOV edits of Signedzzz, during the past ANI discussion, Hijiri88 have provided on the OP. I've also sent you a message on your talk page last October 20 (UTC) to request you an insight. Back to the Galing Pook award inclusion now, you may refer to this link. There I have resided my explanation on how that sentence must be included on the article, that then-mayor Duterte also became a key to gender mainstreaming in Davao City and must be credited too. But this Hijiri88 insists that I am reverting his edit because I don't like it and he'll request me to be blocked 1. He did even accuse me of having a political agenda (apparently a WP:CoI) while I haven't any 2. I see hypocrisy there, because Signedzzz, whom he has been lawyering on the unclosed ANI discussion, don't remind him about the obvious WP:CoI as RioHondo have proven. ~Manila's PogingJuan14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: Did the above answer your question? Can you tell me what the above post (or any of the "clear" "discussion" on the talk page) has to do with ASEAN or the environment? Because I can't figure it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston is taking the lead and I agree with his cautious approach here. That doesn't mean blocks aren't coming, it means he (and I) hope blocks aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully protected Rodrigo Duterte five days per a request at WP:RFPP. In my opinion, recent edits by several people have been less than optimal. This is a good moment to try to have a calm discussion on the article talk page and get agreement on the things being disputed. Any changes that have consensus can be made during the protection by using the {{Edit fully protected}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:"content dispute and edit-warring"? The closest thing to edit-warring has been PogingJuan's repeated attempts to reinsert a source that has nothing to do with the article content, and that is not a content dispute because it has ... nothing to do with article content. I actually don't give a damn about the article content -- all I know is that at present it looks like crap and is very poorly sourced. Shit. Didn't realize that there actually was a content dispute and edit-war that overshadowed my problem immediately afterward and immediately before your RFPP post. Just looking at what you wrote on RFPP, it looked like you were talking about PogingJuan and me. Sorry for the confusion.
@EdJohnston:This is not about the Duterte page, and there isn't even a content dispute -- I reported PogingJuan because of his user conduct issues. Telling me that I should discuss "the things being disputed" with PogingJuan is telling me I should endure more harassment and nonsense non sequiturs. I honestly have no idea what things are being disputed. Sorry. Just found out what you were referring to. VanHalen09 and Signedzzz appear to be engaged in an unrelated content dispute and edit war. This has nothing to do with my problem with PogingJuan's constant attacks, attempts to intimidate, templating the regulars, and refusal to listen when I explain to him that inserting random citations with nothing to do with article content is inappropriate. Before I noticed the subsequent bona fide edit war, it also looked like "less than optimal" was referring to my removal of blog-like citations, since they were the only recent edits of substance that I was aware of. Again, apologies for the misunderstanding.
Yes, presumably this is about VanHalen09 removing a cited quote claiming that it is not mentioned in the source. After two reverts he admitted that it was in fact in the source and apologised. Dispute over. Then he insisted on moving the quote - about Duterte's personal life - out of the personal life section, and into the "Controversies and criticism" section. I reverted, and asked him to please not move stuff out of the relevant section and into the trivia section. He claimed he wasn't doing that, and did it again anyway. At which point I left him to it. The page block came later on, and makes no sense whatsoever in terms of article content, but certainly shut down this discussion very effectively. zzz (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri 88, PogingJuan is one of the people who forms part of the war. Since you included diffs of edits at Rodrigo Duterte in your complaint, I assume that my protecting that article is a relevant step. At present there is no problem that should keep everyone from joining in discussions at Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. If people can't engage there without personal attacks then admin action might be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent the last several weeks trying to discuss with him. Look at the 4000+ word ANI thread that consists primarily of him trying to convince me that the problem was one-sided POV-pushing by Signedzzz. He claimed there were problems with the article, so I stepped in and started trying to fix them. I immediately found. The problems that none of PogingJuan's talk page comments make any sense or properly address the problems (look at his post in this thread), and PogingJuan is extremely aggressive, have nothing to do with article content. I conceded that "Davao city received X award" could stay for the time being and the source that directly supported it could stay as well, but when I tried to remove the other citation that had nothing to do with it, he reverted me twice, and then he started trying to threaten me for "harassing" him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RFCU was abandoned some years ago. If I have a problem with a user repeatedly posting threatening messages on my talk page, [4][5][6] accusing me of "personal attacks" and "harassment" for removing an out-of-place citation in an article,[7][8], accusing me of "biting" a "newcomer" by reverting a disruptive edit he made and explaining to him how it was disruptive (after he had already threatened me),[9] refactoring and decontextualizing my messages on his talk page,[10] pinging me on his talk page before immediately removing the entire thread so I get a notification that he posted an attack against me but am unable to respond,[11][12][13] refusing to look at the content of my edit or even read the edit summary before reverting me,[14] referring to me diminutively as "bro" and insinuating that I lack common sense,[15] and generally not making any sense in their comments, then ANI is where I am supposed to go to request some more eyes on the problem, no? Whether "Davao City" is synonymous with "Rodrigo Duterte" is irrelevant to these problems, and opening an RFC to deal with it would not solve these problems. I'm all for not biting the newcomers, but when a newcomer is this litigious and aggressive, and after five months and several ANI, ANEW and doesn't seem to understand how to engage in civil discussion, then we should be protecting the experienced editors who don't have the time or energy to come up with creative solutions to getting themselves bitten by aggressive newcomers. I did not come here to request that PogingJuan be blocked -- I would be content with a mentoring solution similar to the TheStrayDog issue that was presented here a few weeks back. But I don't want to do the mentoring myself as (among other reasons) it doesn't look like PogingJuan would be amenable to me being his mentor anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UpdateApparently PogingJuan is going to pull away from the Duterte article and will reflect on his editing. This is hopefully the end of the issue, and even if it is not I will hopefully not have to be the one to deal with it next time. I find it concerning, though, that even in saying that he realized he was wrong on the article substance he failed to recognize that the bigger problem was his repeatedly inserting of a citation that had nothing to do with the aticle substance. This means that he still doesn't get why this was wrong, and is therefore liable to do it again somewhere else. I don't mind this thread being closed now, since PogingJuan has apparently agreed to stop harassing and threatening me personally, but I still think some mentoring or other oversight would be a good idea going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I am right, the issue here is about the citation of Galing Pook award that barely names Duterte and therefore inappropriate to include it on the article, isn't it? I have recognized that already, that it was really inappropriate as Duterte was not the recipient, though it was awarded on Davao City under Duterte admin. My explanation on Hijiri88's talk page was based on the same Galing Pook citation, stating "doing good governance is not only about the governors and mayors, but the participation of the people, especially the women" so meaning, the award was not only attributed on Duterte but also his constituents and therefore, it was really inappropriate to include the Galing Pook citation on Duterte article, and so I agree that it may be placed on maybe Government of Davao City or Davao City. And yes, as I said to Hijiri88, I will get rid myself on editing Duterte article temporarily and instead focus on other articles and creating articles for the upcoming Wikipedia Asian Month 2016. I am also really hoping that the problems regarding proper citations and neutrality on Rodrigo Duterte article will be solved. Regards. ~Manila's PogingJuan18:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. As I have stated numerous times, it's about the citation attached to the Galing Pook award that doesn't mention Duterte or the Galing Pook award at all. It's the one you kept edit-warring overafter my concession that the actual statement about the Galing Pook award and its source could stay in the article pending consensus to remove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Ah that one! The ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source?. Oh my God, so, that is the real problem after all? I'm so stupid that I haven't looked onto your edit. I thought you have reverted it all. And that's why you have said PogingJuan, if you blankly revert me again because you didn't like PART of my edit, I will request that you be blocked per WP:CIR. I really thought you have reverted it all, just because you don't like my edit, due to our opposing views on recently-archived ANI thread. I haven't even thought that you have conceded the sentence, and for that stupidity of mine, I'm really sorry. ~Manila's PogingJuan05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have just inserted that ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source, because it states in the citation under Awards & Recognitions the The Gender Mainstreaming Program of the Davao City Government chosen as one of the Top 10 Most Outstanding Programs in the Galing Pook Awards in 2004. You may look this screenshot. You may also look it manually at the website (if you're using Windows, you can use CTRL+F). Meaning, I have included that citation as a support citation only. Now, if that is not really necessary, we may not include that citation. Once again, I'm sorry for me barking up the wrong tree. Still, I'm not changing my stance that I will temporarily get rid of editing Duterte article, as it have affected my editing routine. ~Manila's PogingJuan05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not going to push it, but you're not allowed to PrtScrn a copyrighted website and post the image on Commons just to make a point. And that is definitely not an ideal source -- even if it does say "The Gender Mainstreaming Program of the Davao City Government chosen as one of the Top 10 Most Outstanding Programs in the Galing Pook Awards in 2004". That actually isn't even the same thing as your text's "Davao City won the Galing Pook award for "gender-responsive" governance in 2004" -- it appears to contradict it. If you are seriously making this kind of edit on a regular basis, and you can't understand why it's inappropriate, the project would probably be better off without you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, that last comment seems excessive and non-constructive. PogingJuan seems to be making some substantial concessions here and expressing genuine regret regarding where the source of the misunderstandings between you lay. You may wish to to consider that your own learning curve on this project has been especially steep and marked by controversial behaviour; there is not a single other editor that I have noticed who has been more regularly involved as a party to more combined disputes brought before ANI and ArbCom in the last year and a half, but we didn't write you off. I agree with your assessment of some of the issues you have highlighted in your last couple of posts here, but I don't think "we're probably better off without you" is in any way helpful or illustrative of the matters needing adressing, either for PongingJuan or for anyone reviewing the issues here. Snowlet's rap01:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were misunderstandings, but there were also unambiguous threats and severe disruption to the article space, with not a lot of worthwhile content creation to counterbalance it. I agree the end of my last comment was harsh, but it was my honest opinion (based on evidence), and was clearly not a threat (I would have opened a subthread if that was my intent). If you want to keep an eye on PogingJuan's edits going forward to make sure no more copyvios, edit-wars, coatracking, BLP-violations, threats of off-wiki violence, etc. take place, be my guest. I have better things to do with my time, and as long as PogingJuan doesn't get in my way I don't see any need to pursue any of the above further. But if you are not planning on working to solve the problem, then you should not criticize me for simply stating that there is a problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very obviously, I was not criticizing you for "stating that there is a problem", nor for using this space to address those issues--nor even to seek a specific sanction or community response, if you chose to do that. Unambiguously, I was criticizing one specific comment that was borderline incivil and certainly non-constructive and unhelpful. And I don't, in any sense, have to take responsibility for reforming PogingJuan's behaviour if I want to comment on where I think your tone and approach to discussion is inappropriate. That's the very definition of a false choice, and no policy or principle of community consensus requires me to resolve this entire dispute between you two before I can narrowly address one problematic comment.
If PongingJuan is unambiguously displaying all of those behaviours that you list, then those are certainly issues that need addressing (specially threats of off-wiki violence if those have genuinely occurred--that's a bright line violation). But I'm familiar enough with your approach to the multiple running feuds that have been dragged here time again that I'm a little skeptical that this is as one-sided as you present--and your "I'll let him off here, so long as he stays out of my way" comment magnifies those concerns. Again, you're perfectly within your rights (and indeed, encouraged) to utilize the process here to address problematic behaviour in another editor. But that does not in any sense give you carte blanche to say whatever you want--please keep your comments in the vein of those observations which may be useful in resolving issues, and stay away from providing your general assessment of the character or value of another contributor. I honestly don't understand why you find that request controversial or surprising, or why you think I need to take over resolving the issues of an ANI thread you started before you are expected to comport with our community standards for civil and productive discussion. Keeping your comments focused on the specific issues at hand (and away from blanket judgements/insults) is not mutually exclusive with restraining disruptive editing in another party. Indeed, it actually makes that process a lot simpler. Snowlet's rap01:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? What "multiple running feuds"? You are familiar with "my approach"? The only feud that I have "dragged" here in the past six months was with a South Korean nationalist who kept accusing me of being a North Korean spy because I wanted Wikipedia's romanization of Korean to match the majority of English-language reliable sources (or something). If you thought said editor was being harassed by me, then you should have commented in one of those threads. In this case, PogingJuan was the one who brought his dispute with another editor (he had made a veiled threat about people off-wiki seeing the user's edits about death squads and was edit-warring to keep the threat in) to ANI, which is where I saw it, and I commented -- I was immediately met with several weeks' worth of bogus accusations, bullshit sourcing, and the rest. You clearly have not read the above discussion and all the evidence I presented if you didn't get this.
And yes, you do have an obligation to actually look through the evidence presented and come up with a reasonable explanation/solution before casting aspersions against other editors. I said what I did, and I provided evidence for it. If you disagree with the evidence, you should try to refute it. Attacking me for my "tone" is inappropriate.
You're still missing my point here, Hijiri--you have a separate obligation to avoid WP:Personal attacks and other inflammatory comments, regardless of whatever disruptive behaviour you allege the other party to have engaged in--or indeed, regardless of whatever disruptive behaviour you have proven they engaged in. Again, I don't know why you are regarding this as a confusing or surprising principle, but let me put it in the most plain terms I can, an idiom that most any native English speaker becomes familiar with early in life: "two wrongs do not make a right". You can be completely correct in every assessment you make about his conduct and you are still not allowed to make just any comment you'd like. I went out of my way from the start here to make it clear to you that I had looked at the circumstances and that I agreed with numerous of your assessments, but that I viewed that one particular comment to be excessive and non-constructive. Regarding that one narrow assessment, it's irrelevant to me whether or not he is ultimately the major disruptive party here or not. If he is, then may you have every success in addressing his behaviour. But please, per WP:NPA, do it by keeping your comments focused on the issues at hand, and not by making general assessments of his worth, thrown in to register your generally low opinion of him. Making those sorts of comments does absolutely nothing to clarify or address the substantive issues, but rather only serves to inflame situations like this. Snowlet's rap02:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think pointing out, with evidence, that another user has a competence issue meaning that most of their edits are bad and even those that aren't still need to be scrutinized to make sure they aren't, and that this is more trouble for the rest of the community than it is worth, is a "personal attack", then I suggest you re-read WP:WIAPA. There are probably hundreds of editors who appeared to be editing in good faith but constantly made serious mistakes because they didn't know how to properly read sources (etc.) and were blocked because no one wanted to teach them the ins and outs, show them the world map, and so on. If you are not willing to do that, then you can't criticize me for not being willing to do that, and if you can't criticize me for not being willing to do that, then you can't criticize me for speculating that the alternative solution of blocking him until he can demonstrate himself that he can behave responsibly might be best. Speculating on that is not a "personal attack", even if the speculation is incorrect. You have admitted that you have not looked at any of the evidence (you apparently haven't even read PogingJuan's comments in this thread), so you have no idea even whether I am right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holy mother of WP:IDHT. Fine Hijiri, have it your way. I can't make you acknowledge the point I am trying to emphasize here, not if you are determined to keep avoiding it by suggesting I just don't get the situation, even though I've told you that I -have- looked into the circumstances (and have done so in literally every post I've made in this thread, from the first to the most recent). Since I can't convince you to see the issues with that kind of comment and attitude, continue to treat other contributors you are in conflict with in this fashion, if they refuse to "stay out of your way"-- and then take umbrage any time any uninvolved party here tries to point out to you that civility between you and your "opposition" is a two-way street.
Just bear in mind that a) you're interactions with other editors have been the subject of ANI threads on numerous occasions, leading to more than a few warnings and sanctions, including at least one IBAN that I can recall, b) you were most recently sanctioned by ArbCom, for a contest of wills not altogether dissimilar from this one, in that it involved another editor who you regarded as generally useless to the project, and c) you've been blocked numerous times for a battleground mentality and incivility/PA issues. So you can continue to respond to every single minor criticism you receive here with a staunch and absolutist defense (and always believe that the other party just hasn't looked into the issue well enough to now that you're right), but my genuine advice to you is that maybe you are overdue to pause and question whether some of this advice on how to deal with conflict on this project might just be useful to you. If you can tolerate, for a moment, the notion that there might be room for improvement somewhere in your approach. That's the last of what I have to say on this matter, you can take it or leave it as you wish. Snowlet's rap07:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise:, @Hijiri88: "he had made a veiled threat about people off-wiki seeing the user's edits about death squads and was edit-warring to keep the threat in" Excuse me, this line is getting on my nerves, seriously! That was the point-of-view of User:Signedzzz on our recently-archived ANI thread, but I think, you have missed the point to acknowledge my point-of-view that 'death threatening' Signedzzz was not my intention, when he have said that was my intention. I have already said that 'that was just a reminder that his actions on Wikipedia are recorded on the page history and he may be blocked due to his mass deletion of sourced articles cited by User:RioHondo. You know what? That is the reason why I have blamed you of lawyering Signedzzz. Remember that I may have stopped temporarily editing on Duterte article (due to it affects my editing routine), I may have acknowledged my fault regarding on Galing Pook citation, I may have withdrawn the recently-archived ANI (although I doesn't matter) because I think that will not make Wiki any better as I have posted on your talk page, but my stand will not change that Signedzzz have accused me of death threatening, while I haven't really did that. ~Manila's PogingJuan13:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a goddamn break, PogingJuan -- you did say that people off-wiki might see the bit about death-squads, and everyone who looked at it who didn't already agree with you on article agreed it looked like a threat. You should have retracted it and clarified that you did not mean it as a threat, but instead you edit-warred to keep it in exactly as you wrote it. This makes it impossible to interpret as a good-faith mistake. Why the hell are you still even here? I thought you said you were going to leave the Duterte issue alone? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was not about the bit about death squads, but the whole article, and how it was written. I have said too, both people on-wiki and off-wiki, not off-wiki only. I did say that I'm going to leave the Duterte article issue on you, but it doesn't give you the right to defame me on other users (by cherry-picking; like a World War II victor on losers). I, rather, didn't also say that I'm not going defend myself as a user. ~Manila's PogingJuan14:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't restrict me on explaining my side, and don't also get one user's point-of-view only. You want me to leave, but you are defaming me using cherry-picking on the archived ANI thread. It's kinda unfair on my side. ~Manila's PogingJuan15:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems inappropriate for this ANI thread to be continued as we have solved the concerned part of the post, which is Galing Pook citation. I see this ANI thread not an appropriate place for the Duterte article's other citation issues. Remember, as you have said on the archived ANI thread, the right place so that the article be reviewed is BLPN, and not ANI. ~Manila's PogingJuan15:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "restricting you on explaining your side". I'm asking you to shut up and get over it. You said what you did. I gave my opinion on it. So did several other people. It's finished. It hasn't been live on-wiki for weeks at this point. There's no need to keep talking about it.
it seems inappropriate for this ANI thread to be continued My thoughts exactly. So please stop dragging it out and let it be archived. You are the one who keeps coming back and extending this, not me. Everything I have said since I don't mind this thread being closed nowa little over a week ago has been in response to some continuing commentary from you.
He hasn't done anything more since the thread started, and his other contributions look only mildly problematic (and sparse). He has more deleted contributions than live ones, but they still mostly relate to Basudde. Is there any reason to keep this report open? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is now blocked indef by User:Seraphimblade for persistent disruptive editing. (The apparent autobiography at Basaaya Rocks Peter was deleted twice per A7 and is now salted). Suggest that this report can be closed. We can consider an unblock request if one is posted, and if the user offers to follow policy in the future. He did create the article on Herman Basudde which appears notable, though a lot of non-encyclopedic material had to be removed by others. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Malleus Maleficarum disruption by Vami IV
I'd like to advocate for topic ban for Vami IV(at least)(actually, I was worried about disruption to this particular article only).
In context of this article, Vami IV is best known for complaining about bias in Malleus Maleficarum that was, in his opinion, evident because lead section said that this book is misogynistic and in his opinion apparently this book wasn't misogynistic. This word had 6 citations at the time, citations with quotes. (before talk page section there was 1 citation with quote by Broedel and rich descriptions in article body[16], significant time before his NPOV noticeboard post there were 6 citations with quotes)
He raised this issue on articles' talk page [17], brought this issue to NPOV noticeboard [18], [19] (he later expanded it by affecting his original post after multiple replies have been made, which led to block of my account due to my reverts, block of my account was almost immediately overturned by another admin). Vami IV was also reprimanded here for WP:NPA[20] and instructed here [21] (please also note how Vami changed his signature to "Non multa,sed Vicipaedia" partially obscuring his username in this thread).
The turning point for posting this to ANI is this edit by Vami IV: [22]. He changed his mind completely, now he made, to give some examples, the following changes to the lead section:
he modified multiple quotations from Pavlac, Guiley, Burns, Britannica by modifying them, for example "for Kramer's misogyny" into "supposed extreme mistrust of women". He also added unwarranted tag "citation needed" to suggest that the preceding statement is unsourced with the following citation. which can be interpreted in many ways with various levels of sophistication.
I will stop short of speculating what are his intentions. Please take into consideration that this is a highly controversial article and very challenging to develop even without this kind of disruption. This article is also listed as high importance in two wiki projects and of importance in other wikiprojects.
On a personal note, I really did not want to see this here, or at least not yet. I was hoping that someone besides one of the two sources of the current conflict at the article would have brought up Vami IV's behavior (assuming Vami IV doesn't just leave the article alone). Some of the stuff brought up by OP (who is not in the best position to be making this report) is iffy. Yes, Vami IV has changed his signature, but that's not really an issue. He does a lot of other good wikignome work such as tagging talk pages. However, Vami IV (who admits to being a Gamergater) has shown some concerning behavior when it comes to this article, such as:
As most of his edits consist of tagging articles as BLPs, it's hard to sort through his other article edits. Based on what I've seen here, though, I'm having a very hard time trusting him with gender related topics.
Please do not let this get bogged down in other issues about the article. For those who are unaware, both Asterixf2 and Ryn78 (who will no doubt be here soon enough) are arguing over which version is the best, and both of their versions have their merits. If they'd quit fighting like schoolkids, there'd be a damn fine article. That could and should be resolved peaceably with no admin action. However, Vami IV has buttered up Ryn78 with empty "me-too"-isms, never addressing any concern Ryn78 has raised while only targeting the word "misogynistic" -- a word that Ryn78 has previously left in and had no issue with until I advised him to not seek an ally in Vami IV. Vami IV's behavior's only connection to the Ryn78/Asterixf2 conflict is that he has exacerbated it for his own ends (ends which are illustrated above). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it would end this entire debate, I will submit to whatever disciplinary action you decide to take against me.
P.S. You probably won't believe me, but at the time I didn't realize that changing my sig would erase my name from signed posts. I was simply trying to make a really cool sig - colored text, links to my user and talk pages, the whole nine yards. If it helps, I'll sign like this: --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia17:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)[reply]
The signature is not an issue, and your "sources" were talk page posts. Just because you put something in ref tags does not make it a source. This isn't about punishment, this is to prevent you from disrupting the article further. If you will agree to quit exacerbating the conflict between Ryn78 and Asterixf2 by leaving the article alone (so that it can be resolved by neutral editors), that'd be all that's necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the other editor Ian Thomson referred to (the other one "fighting like schoolkids" as he describes it). This issue is being grossly exaggerated here. Vami changed a few phrases, including restoring one that I had deleted because it was a point of contention. I reverted all of his new changes today, so they aren't even an issue any longer. While I would prefer that Vami had left this stuff out while we discussed it, nonetheless Asterix himself has continuously added or deleted entire paragraphs while we were supposed to be discussing them (up until he was placed under a 1RR restriction by an admin because of his edit-warring). But now he's demanding that Vami be banned for changing a few phrases? That's ridiculous, unless you're also going to ban Asterix himself for far worse offenses on an ongoing basis.
Ian Thomson isn't helping things much by making caustic accusations of his own. Vami objected to the word "misogyny" because (as he explained on my talk page) he feels that Wikipedia shouldn't present value judgments about historical issues, not because he hates women. There's no evidence of the latter. He also doesn't seem to realize what the Malleus actually says about women, in which case he's proceeding from a lack of knowledge rather than from the malice that Ian Thomson keeps alleging. I also tried to explain to Thomson that many historians, including women, have also taken issue with the way that feminists have tried to politicize the Malleus, which is similar to Vami's arguments. I hadn't previously really taken a position on this dispute between Vami and Asterix/Ian Thompson, but I think the best thing would be to 1) state what the Malleus actually says rather than putting a label on it (e.g. its claims that women are likely to be atheists and likely to dabble in the occult; its recommendation that female prisoners' pubic hair should be shaved and then tortured, etc). 2) The disputed phrases could easily be written in a neutral manner that both sides can agree to. But that isn't going to happen unless the heated rhetoric is brought to an end, and likewise Asterix's constant attempt to report and punish people for even the slightest disagreement. He has made frivolous "reports" against me as well, while spreading this debate into several other pages. When is this finally going to end? Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your civil pov pushing focused on a fixed collection of aspects since 2013 is by far worse. [23] Ian.thomson is helping a lot despite the challenging nature of this matter as I have emphasized in my comment on his talk page [24]. BTW fyi: Ryn78 has buried this vital section [25] ("Reception") in HTML comment so that it does not appear as removal of a lot of valuable content (here is a diff: [26]. I have used there a source on which he insisted (Jolly). I comment on this section in article's talk page. Ryn78 has not raised any substantial arguments regarding this section. Ryn78 hides various pieces of text in many ways. a) pushing them to notes b) to ref block c) to html comment block. He was also caught on removal of citations (without removal of sentences). Against hiding text he was warned by another user previously (he is doing it repetitively) here I raise all of this here. It doesn't show up as removal of a lot of text. Not to mention his failure to recognize excellent sources and at the same time pushing questionable sources into the article and into lead section in particular. Corresponding RS noticeboard threads are here and here. All of which and more I raise also on talk page. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud. Now you're repeating the same stuff over here that you've been repeating on the article's talk page. I've already addressed all those points many times over there. Finally respond (over there, not here). Insisting that you can keep adding more of your own material without consensus is pretty much the definition of a refusal to ever reach consensus. That's why I commented out the last section you added: you can't just keep piling on more stuff before we've reached any agreement on the older material. That violates the entire point of discussion. Ryn78 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were some statements we didn't agree on. Instead of deleting your pov, I kind of moved on to develop section Reception. This is a vital section for an article about a book (see example of article structure). You could have improved on my work but instead you once more have shown that you apparently have a different approach. I prefer to let the sources speak. In my opinion, you have repeatedly, and perhaps permanently, failed to work cooperatively and constructively on this article. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained why I commented out the Reception section: discussion becomes meaningless if one side is allowed to keep adding more material promoting their own POV before any agreement has been worked out on their previous material promoting their own POV. This is basic stuff. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have hidden it again with ridiculous edit summary [27]. Good-faith content of this section is clearly within the scope of this article and it is properly sourced. You violate content policy, WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. This section does not violate WP:NPOV and even if it were, you could have developed it. (2) With 2 sources that were challenged you are in violation of WP:Verifiability. a) Behringer source violates WP:ABOUTSELF because there IS reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as shown in the RS noticeboard discussion. Also it is allegedly self-published. b) Jenny Gibbons is effectively self-published and you use it for exceptional claims. Both of your sources satisfy WP:REDFLAG. You ignore WP:NOTTRUTH completely and try to argue with me instead of talking about sources that are used in the article. Please consider replying in article's talk page only. Please avoid plausible misinformation. You may want to have a look at Denialism, conspiracy theory, Semmelweis reflex and backfire effect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied article to my sandbox, updated lead to mention both authors (Ryn78 insists on one), restored content hidden by him and highlighted his additions, which are mostly not only npov and undue but also violate WP:RS what was already discussed in RS noticeboard (there is also new section in article's talk page about best sources). I am planning to add more citations and fourth paragraph to the lead that will mention controversy related to the second author. However, I cannot use 2 proposed by him sources because they are totally unreliable. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked that I reply on the article's talk page, I've addressed the one relevant point over there. The rest is just your usual scatter-shot method of finger-pointing (no, I didn't violate any rules by commenting out a new POV section while we're still discussing other POV sections you had added; and no, I'm not a "denialist" or "conspiracy theorist" or the other stuff you're accusing me of). Ryn78 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV that Mackay is right and the historians I've cited are wrong. That's your opinion (and Mackay's opinion), it's not the undisputed truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please write precisely what makes it POV, because I have not used Mackay as a reference in this section.here is a link to the section (I could, he is an excellent source, best in the article. I used him in one note in this section but all text is supported by other references and this is just an additional note; for this section my primary source was Broedel - second best modern secondary source in the article out of such 2 :) ) --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"POV" means a specific point of view rather than covering both sides or presenting a neutral version. You keep pushing Mackay's view as absolute truth. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be inappropriate for me to distort any of the 2 best secondary sources to accommodate your "approach". It would be also highly scandalous to disregard them. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not done that because I was afraid that it will only distract me from expanding this article. I am planning to continue adding new content. I perceive more detailed descriptions of controversial aspects as the best way to reach consensus. Also adding more content before going to DRN will probably make it more plausible that more informed decisions will be made so to some extent I can live with Ryn78's very difficult conduct if necessary. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I'd like to make clear what is going on to avoid misunderstanding (partially, because there is more nonsense going on like Jenny Gibbons as a source). Not only Ryn78 has hidden section Reception but he is also civil pov pushing since 2013 (now Adamfinmo who thanked him for hiding this section joined him, Adamfinmo repeatedly removes (reverts) my comments in article's talk page. Last time he reverted imprecisely, I commented on the partially left content and he later removed this portion what makes a thread look messy and nonsensical, my new comment with suggestion about article was stricken-through by him, I'm following 1RR there)
Ryn78 argues that Sprenger isn't the co-author. However: (1)ALL secondary sources in the article disagree with him and say Sprenger is co-author (Broedel, Mackay, Summers), Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even mention that Sprenger could not be an author. (article's bibliography) (2) His claim that Sprenger is not a co-author is supported by citations from 7-page PDF from nowhere, not dated and which looks like a draft and also was discussed in RS noticeboard here. Btw, he floods article with out-of-context cherry-pick statements from this source giving them undue weight. (3)Here is a version with fixed lead section (also with inappropriate content by Ryn78 highlighted, it may be discussed but with WP:DUE and other sources). (4)I have provided 6 citations in this version for joint authorship including ALL secondary sources (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). This is the same version as in point 3 above. I have included in the lead section the statement about authorship controversy as sympathetic towards his perspective as I could. (4)Ritchie333, do you think WP:DRN is going to help in this case? I have doubts about priorities and WP:AGF is very difficult in this case. CC: @TParis and Softlavender:
Let's be clear here I'm not on RYN78's team or anything or the sort, I'm simply trying to get you to participate in a collaborative process. Instead you continue to push your version without gaining consensus. That's why you are on a 1RR right. As for deleting your comments, article talk space is not for discussing editors or simply posting links with out comment. Off topic posts and personal attacks can be summarily removed from talk pages. I did make an imperfect deletion, that you left when you reinserted your off topic link post. It is all fixed now. Can we proceed with building a good article on the talk page? --Adam in MOTalk19:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asterixf2: You're repeating a whole slew of misrepresentations that I've already debunked. Just to make this brief since this isn't the place for this type of content dispute: No, "all secondary sources" in the article do not support your view that Sprenger was a co-author. No, there's nothing wrong with the Gibbons article (from an academic journal). The fact that you submitted that source and the Behringer article to Wikipedia:Realiable Sources doesn't mean you gained consensus that these are invalid, in fact you met with a lot of opposition on both points. The other points have also been covered ad nauseam on the article talk page, which is where this type of thing needs to be handled. Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This thread keeps popping up on my watchlist, mainly because the OP has made 68+ edits [28] to it and to the ANI thread he opened three days previously about the same article:
I agree with admin Ritchie333 that this is a content dispute however one looks at it (and that is also clear from the discussion on this thread), and that Dispute Resolution needs to be applied. Could we please staunch the time-waste and close this (as I said, there have been two ANI threads on this article within three days)? First of all, ANI is not the place for content disputes, and second of all, we don't want to encourage the OP to keep filing on ANI every time he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA. So could someone please close this as a content dispute, unsuitable for ANI? If so, thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to point out that this request for closure was made by an involved editor.he has a content dispute with someone about this article, where he is an SPA I am not an SPA. To call me an SPA because I am currently developing this article and focusing on it is abusive and discrediting. 99% of new content in this article was added by me. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have intensified my efforts last month and developed this article (what can be seen on month counts). Previously, I have just tagged various statements in this article. Activity on talk page is due to civil pov pushing by Ryn78. As I understand, I am supposed to discuss with him the points on which we disagree. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: And he's still arguing points of content (this time with a gigantic image): [29]. Will someone please explain to Asterixf2 how the various options of WP:DR actually work? And explain to him that ANI is not the place to bring or resolve content issues? And/or simply close this thread so the issues can go to their proper venue? Asterixf2 is a new user, has been on Wikipedia only 3 months, has made only 1,500 edits, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum: [30]. Someone needs to shut this endless fruitless ANI thread down so that DR can be implemented. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am here much longer than 3 months, you would need to multiply it. Please avoid misleading information. Of course there was a significant number of edits to Malleus because I got interested in this topic but to some extent this number is due to the dispute. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To address a point above, DRN is better than ANI because much of the quarrelling has been over content and sources. Over here, we look at conduct and behaviour, while over there it's focused on the merits of your work on MM. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to highlight the difficulties, but as nothing can be done I generally agree with you and support the closure. However, I would keep it at least for a few days more so that everybody has a chance to make last comments and be fully aware of the issues discussed here without misunderstandings. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC); edited Asterixf2 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, again, this is not true. For example, RS noticeboard has been used two times [31], [32] but the user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT as far as substantial arguments are concerned. Furthermore, hiding section Reception in html comments is especially nasty and it is absolutely unsubstantiated (see whatpov above and clarification above) that is why I think this is a behavioral issue. Because of this and other aspects, in my opinion this is a behavioral issue. This is disruptive editing due to persistent failure or refusal to "get the point". Please see WP:RUNAWAY, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. PS. In the most recent book Mackay explains authorship in an excellent way. Here is my proposed content about it: [33] (theories to the contrary should be described but with proper sources and due weight) --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a behavioral issue at the page and it is you, Asterixf2. How many people have to tell you to try and resolve this dispute before you realize that you are the problem. There have been, at least, five editors who have tried to engage you collaboratively. I'd suggest you drop the stick, before consensus moves toward further topic restriction for you. --Adam in MOTalk19:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do try (this proposal was made before your comment) and will accept reasonable behavior and respond to substantial arguments. I won't give any weight to other arguments even if 4 to 1. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That "proposal" is rather hilarious, if Asterixf2 is serious about it. Either way that "proposal" along with their admission that they aren't here to collaborate with other editors shows that they are clearly a spa and they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I propose that Asterixf2 be indefinitely topic banned from this article across all name spaces.--Adam in MOTalk20:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out that you have not explained to me what it is that you perceive to be wrong so that I can learn sth perhaps. Also, instead of replying to my comment in the way you did, you could have let me know how to change a proposal so that it suits your taste better on my talk page. Unless you didn't want me to change it. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I have 2 proposals, if he doesn't agree to those conditions than I prefer the version without the 'most likely' words. If he agrees to those conditions I prefer to insert 'most likely'. Overall result is important. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many times would you like me to repeat it? Copy and paste your proposed changes to the talk page, with sources, and we will discuss it. That is how consensus is reached.--Adam in MOTalk23:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) I have made twice a meta-comment that you are an involved editor in this article. Please do not repeatedly remove it like here, here and don't format my comments like here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asterixf2, for heavens sakes stop labeling people's comments here as "involved". That is entirely inappropriate. I've removed your attempted disparagement of this "Request for closure" thread with the same sort of tag (I have made exactly three substantive edits to the Malleus Maleficarum article, and all three were maintenance edits: removal of a clearly non-substantiating [and irrelevant to what it was appended to] footnote [34], removal of an empty section [35], and a grammar correction [36]). If you continue to repost these labels on any editor here, I will request a boomerang on you for opening this content-dispute thread (your second ANI filing about this article in three days) and endlessly maintaining it despite repeated guidance to use WP:DR instead of wasting time on ANI. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion your edits weren't pure maintenance. You restored and removed content in the article and discussed those changes on the talk page. You modified article structure by adding and removing sections. But nonetheless, I don't understand why would you insist on removing this meta-comment that you are an involved editor (you were not protesting before to remove, just now after another editor that is involved removed his.) Furthermore, you were providing misleading and incorrect information in this discussion repeatedly. Asterixf223:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal
Durova in this thread wrote This article [Malleus Maleficarum] has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person. [...] Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. (Durova is inactive) Ryn78 constantly edits Joan of Arc and related articles. His contributions. One of the first Ryn78's edits are to Joan of Arc article. He edits this article regularly since then that is since 6 years. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asterixf2 has refused to listen to the suggestions of multiple experienced editors, including admins, to take his issues regarding Malleus Maleficarum to one of the WP:DR processes rather than to continue to argue points of content here on ANI. He has never even attempted to utilize WP:DR, and has failed to gain a consensus that the issues on the article are solely behavioral (every content issue involves behavior until it is properly addressed via WP:DR) or that it cannot be resolved by WP:DR. There is no consensus on this thread that Vami IV or Ryn78 is in the wrong, and this thread is therefore an extensive echo chamber of Asterixf2 arguing points of content, usually with Ryn78. Moreover, Asterixf2 started another ANI thread on Malleus Maleficarum three days before he opened this one [37] (which did not turn out well, but he did not learn his lesson). He has made 130+ edits on the subject of Malleus Maleficarum on ANI [38]. More than 60% of his entire edit history involves Malleus Maleficarum, and more than 80% of his article-space and article-talk edits have been to Malleus Maleficarum and its talk page. Moreover, he repeatedly utilizes giant colored images and giant colored type to draw attention to his points and to attempt to incriminate others (devices he also utilizes on Talk:Malleus Maleficarum).
Therefore, I propose one or more of the following to put at least a temporary stop the the time-waste and WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior:
A temporary topic ban on Malleus Maleficarum, broadly construed, to last at least three to six months.
Closure of this thread and a topic ban on posting on ANI or AN about Malleus Maleficarum.
A ban on the utilization of images, colors, type-sizes, edit-lines, and other such enhancements, in discussions (this would also include tagging of others' posts or labeling them as "involved", etc).
A ban on further replies to this thread.
Any other solution (block?) that others wish to propose.
First, Softlavender is an involved edtior. Second, I'd like to point out that user Softlavender has a record of repeatedly providing incorrect and misleading information in this discussion. In my opinion, her new threads here obfuscate substantial discussion and derail this whole thread. She has already created a Request for closure and this is another one.
Also, in the subsection #Request for closure that she previously started I have answered to the arguments she repeats here. In particular, she is again providing blatantly false information that WP:DR was not used despite being warned previously that this is an incorrect statement. She said previously (above) WP:DRN is not the only form of WP:DR. It is one of many. Any of them may be applied to this content dispute, and exactly none of them have been utilized on the article. ANI is not the venue for matters of content. Softlavender and to this statement I have replied in subsection #This is a behavioral issue --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I concurred with all of SL's proposal. I have attempted to engage Asterixf2 multiple times, only to run into the same idht attitude. They routinely edit their posts ex post facto without re-time stamping or otherwise declaring so. They also have a tendency to misuse talk pages to pontificate on other editors. This editor has already stated that they will not abide by the opinions of other editors. Enough is enough. --Adam in MOTalk13:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is about you and not me. You should address your critics. Second, I shouldn't have reverted that comment. I was wrong and it should be restored. Third, that is my IP for my work computer. I have declared so on the talk page. Forth, no shit, I'm involved. I have declared it several times. So how about you take this declaration that I'm definitely involved and stop tagging my comments? The whole world knows I'm involved. This fact does not invalidate anything I have said this far. --Adam in MOTalk15:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First rule of holes; when you find yourself in one Stop digging! You're obnoxious tagging of involved editors posts as "... is an involved editor" is unnecessary. Yes we're all aware, involved parties tend to be the most interested. Could you also stop with the images, random highlighting of words, use of random bold and underlining for emphasis. It just makes it that much harder to read. Register my vote below. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close; Just close the thread with no action and a note that Asterix either take this to the article talk page or WP:DRN before they get hit with PBAN or other. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support This thread is almost completely illegible, and it's pretty obvious whose fault that is. I don't think closing with no action would be a good idea -- whatever Asterix thinks he's doing with this bizarre comment style, it doesn't look like he's willing to stop. It also seems like WP:CIR is a serious issue with this user -- see for instance how he refers to both Softlavender and Adamfinmo as "involved users" despite the former not having touched either the Malleus Maleficarum article or its talk page until after this thread opened, and the latter having made only one (obviously good) revert on the talk page before the thread opened. I'm guessing now he will call me an involved user because I edited the page once in 2005? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if she got involved before or after this thread was opened. The nature of edits matter. As far as stopping is concerned, obviously I won't edit this thread if will be closed. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support all or any of my proposals, as nominator. As Adam and Hijiri state above, there's clearly an IDHT and CIR issue with this editor, and removing him from the battlefield would probably cause him to learn how to properly edit, collaborate, discuss, and reach consensus and/or dispute resolution. (Cue him yet again tagging me a so-called "involved editor" even though I have only made three maintenance edits to the article, and those only after seeing the endless discussions of the article here on ANI.) Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This will teach me nothing and your proposal contains blatantly false information that I have not utilized WP:DR. You have not corrected this information. Was this proposal made in bad faith or are you going to correct it? --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please click WP:DR, WP:DRR, and WP:DRN. Posts on WP:RSN are not going to resolve, and clearly haven't resolved, the various content disputes on the article (and frankly, even though that and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution). You need to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Ritchie has repeatedly suggested WP:DRN for this article, and since he has looked into the matter I would probably take his suggestion, but any of those four options could work. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note For the sake of context it is important to note that Softlavender is apparently replying to Asterixf2's comment as it existed before they changed it ex post facto.--Adam in MOTalk18:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see she replied 20 minutes after I have corrected "WP:RS" into "WP:DR" [39]. I had changed it before anybody have replied. Thank you for your very, very useful note. PS. policy says that noticeboards are dispute resolution. Her post still contains incorrect information. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamfinmo: No, I replied after Asterixf2 had made the change. I replied to the form of the post as it exists now, not to the previous version. To reiterate my point, which apparently he still doesn't get, even though RSN (which filings he has linked to far above) and some other specialized noticeboards are listed at WP:DR, they are not considered content-dispute resolution. He needs to engage in actual dispute resolution together with the other party(ies) involved, on the talk-page of the article or on the dispute/mediation noticeboard, and that will necessarily consist of either WP:DRN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:RFM. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Thank you for your suggestions. Nonetheless, given long discussions on talk page with Ryn78 and his refusal to split issues into dedicated threads, I find your comment unreasonable. Also I don't agree with your opinion about specialized noticeboards because it contradicts policy. I don't say that you are wrong with your suggestions of other DR measures. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken the above because the discussion has not been moved. Discussions cannot be moved without the consent of the editors involved, particularly not ANI discussions, particularly not to user talk pages. And Asterixf2 still does not know what WP:DR means. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment summary of my position so far is in the first comment of This is a behavioral issue subsection (including clarification and whatpov). Also I have made a note in #For additional consideration Joan of Arc vandal above. Hidden section Reception is here. Lead section with 6 citations for coauthorship from my proposal is here: Lead section. This lead section contains citations with quotes for authorship from ALL secondary sources in the article (Broedel, Mackay, Summers). His two highly questionable sources are discussed here and here (both with fierce opposition from user GBRV and without attention from Ryn78) PS. There are going to be further developments in this crisis. I suggest to leave this thread open. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC); edited --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta give it to you. You are consistent. You said you would ignore consensus "even if it is 4 on1". You are true to your word. I implore you, please back down and, at least try to participate in discussion on the talk page.--Adam in MOTalk20:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about ignoring consensus but about weight of arguments. Here is the diff. I am going to participate in the discussion on talk page as I did so far. I will insert there the lead section as you asked previously. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adamfinmo I have copied lead section to the talk page as you asked me to previously - permalink. I have doubts if this is an appropriate approach because proposals should be made in the article probably. Nonetheless, as you asked. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: please remember that with your last revert you discarded my 6,000-long addition. This is just a remainder, not a complaint. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note2: Mackay, Summers and Broedel say there are 2 authors. For example, Broedel consistently uses the phrase of the kind "Institoris and Sprenger do xyz in their book". I am not going to distort those sources. Mackay's position and his explanation is here. In fact, I am on the edge of withdrawing from the idea that "and most likely" should be used in this section. ALL secondary sources adopt a view that HE IS a coauthor. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note3: Also, if he acknowledged that his sources are inappropriate we could constructively think about some other sources to represent Behringer's views. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason you are up for an article ban is that you don't seem to understand that content discussions belong on article talk pages, not here.--Adam in MOTalk23:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, I guess discussions of gross and obvious violations of content policies are appropriate here WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I am open to your suggestions on my talk page if you would like to clarify this aspect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was an enormous amount of stuff here today. Since the admins replying here are voting to close this thread, I'm just going to say that I agree; and any other issues should be handled on the article's talk page. Ryn78 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were no votes by admins in this boomerang. Please avoid constant plausible misinformation. I don't have a conclusive opinion about closing or not but only because I don't think I have enough knowledge about conduct to have strong opinions in this case. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While you're correct that no admins have voted on this proposal, this; please avoid constant plausible misinformation was unnecessary. There appears to be no intent in Ryn78's comment to spread misinformation. Many non-regulars who come to the administrator's noticeboards assume that administrator's are the ones commenting on them - barring of course the involved parties themselves - for likely obvious reasons. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this statement doesn't say anything about intentions. I simply point out that I consider what he says to constitute misinformation that in my view may appear to be plausible to some observers. I have not used it initially but now I consider the case related to the article Malleus Maleficarum to be severe. I feel the need to use it in some circumstances. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't say that that was a legal threat at all. Pointing out that someone may be engaging in libel is not the same as saying they find it libelous and are intimating they may sue. Blackmane (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What they said, although they are skirting policy a bit. That is a word that is best avoided here as it is easy to tread into causing a "chilling effect" even if you don't make a direct threat. He wasn't notified, which is *required*, Trugster. See the template at the top of the page for instructions. I left a message on their page pointing them here and explaining. Dennis Brown - 2¢11:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stating something is libelous is not in itself a legal threat, but if it was meant to have a similar chilling effect to one, then there is no functional difference between the two in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. I'm not touching the content of the BLPN post or that article with a ten-foot pole (except to say that the BLPN post appears to actually belong on MFD, not BLPN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote, you will see that my statement is made to Wiki, in that I asked for the removal of a rant (hopefully with a gentle warning) from a BLP Talk page on the grounds that it was libellous against me (I am not the subject of the BLP, although I know the person in question). I had intended to discuss what can happen in a situation where a historical author is engaged in activities damaging to his reputation, but are unrelated to the historical matter, and where a single episode in the historical subject can be used to cast doubt by his opponents over the rest of his output - these are important issues in the context of historical writing. I do not expect to get a response along the lines of what came back, which as I stated is libellous. I reported it to Wiki to avoid a direct slanging match with the author of the comments, which may well have resulted in threats of legal action, precisely because that is not helpful to what Wiki is trying to do. Nevertheless, neither are comments like those conducive to sensible discussion and I asked Wiki to deal with it. The rationale for the complaint was that the comments were libellous against me (and thus irrelevant to the question or BLP) and I did not make any threat to their author. DaveHMBA (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DaveHMBA: "libel" is a legal term, and even if accusing another of engaging in libel against you is not technically banned on Wikipedia, it is highly discouraged. If you believe someone violated BLP against a named individual, or attacked you personally, then you should say so -- using words like "libelous" only causes problems. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri: I am perfectly well aware of what 'libel' means as I qualified up as an English lawyer many years ago. "Attacking" someone is not necessarily a defamatory statement 9see the "personal attacks" item above) and putting a defamatory statement in a permanent medium is libel. There are too many people on Wiki and elsewhere, who think they can say what they like and - if you read what I have just written above - it is important that they and their activities are brought to the attention of Wiki and the wider readership. I have simply asked Wiki to remove it as it is libellous, falling within that definition. "prsoanl attack" can often simply be a matter of opinion. DaveHMBA (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DaveHMBA: If you feel that a statement is potentially libelous or defamatory, you can approach any admin and bring it to their attention to request revision deletion. If it is really serious, then you should make Oversight aware of it so the edit can be suppressed. Bear in mind that requesting and edit be Oversighted should be done off ANI. Blackmane (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DaveHMBA: Saying that you are a trained lawyer, and that that was definitely libel, does nothing to calm the situation. It makes your comment look more like a legal threat. Posting on BLPN that an entire talk page should be deleted because some unspecified comment(s) by User:Tirailleur (you should provide diffs) might be libelous is not going to work -- it's not even the right venue to request page deletion. BLPN is for requesting community input (not specifically admin input, and only admins can delete pages) on content disputes that are related to the biographies of living people policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if DaveHMBA would identify what, exactly, he/she thinks is libellous in Tirailleur posts. I've read through the talk page and I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing is a fair amount of pomposity and condescention from DaveHMBA with absolutely no supporting detail. Right now, for me, the whole thing reeks of DaveHMBA making generalised wavy-hand assertions of some sort of transgression which requires the deletion of a complete page. I'm not buying that for an instant. Glancing at my bogusometer, I see that it is in the red. Details, please. --Tagishsimon(talk)03:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really seem intent on starting a fight, don't you? So, to help your 'bogusmeter' with its internal stupidity in understanding what most people can probably see, we can start with 'libel': It is the production of defamatory statements in a permanent medium. Defamation is a statement, which intends to or is reckless about diminishing a person's standing among his peer group. Such a statement can be direct or produce implications, which is quite important here, given the nature of the BLP subject's recent convictions and the general climate about such issues in the UK.
Here is what he wrote: "Far from being the saintly, unfairly-put-upon actor that you misrepresent him as being, Hofschroer is demonstrably a thoroughly nasty and dishonest piece of work. His response to anyone who disagreed with him or pointed out errors was to accuse them of being mad or a paedophile. It's all in the public domain. At no time has he made any serious effort to address critique of his work, however cogent or well-founded. Instead he relies on suggestible saps and sockpuppets to tut-tut on his behalf about how sad it is that "the kind of people" who criticise him offered "little actual debate or presentation of evidence" who "can't counter his historical arguments with reason". All that is simply sanctimonious untruthful rubbish spouted by Hofschroer and with nil basis in fact. All the above has been put to him, and his response to reasonable challenge is to shriek squalid, hypocritical abuse. It is exctly because he can't win the debate that he resorts to vicious smears.
If you want to trust his judgment and be his little helper that's your lookout, but the world of Napoleonic enthusiasts is pretty good at debunking lying charlatans (see David Hamilton-Williams, a "historian" who faked an entire archive) and I'm afraid Hofschroer is just another such. Tirailleur (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)"[reply]
Okay - try:
1)"far from being the saintly, unfairly-put-upon actor that you misrepresent him as being" - at no point did I say this, merely that the behaviour of some of his opponents left a lot to be desired and that a campaign had been whipped up against his original book. It is a statement about my judgement and by implication, how it was affected.
2) After a unpleasant rant about the subject, Tirailleur continues: "If you want to trust his judgement and be his little helper" - now, given that I thought it was right to say I had known the subject for many years (not that I have seen him for 13 years or spoken to him for about 4), what would you say that phrase following on from the rant above implies? Would you like to see yourself attached to a rant like that? I suspect not, so why do you think I should put up with it?
3) As I explained below, the guy is an ignorant clown for libelling me and then failing to realise he was praising me for looking at sourcing incisively.
So, what is Tirailleur's intent? Well, Waterloo certainly raises the hackles on both sides and the whole aggro (I would not call it a debate) went on for about 10 years - yes, you do have to wonder about some people and past events, but then a bloke did tell me in a pub in 1991 that he "wouldn't have anything said against Elvis". Tirailleur's intent as regards the subject was to discredit his entire output (possibly because it raises other historical questions he finds awkward) and quite clearly to defame anyone else, who pointed out that his own behaviour left much to be desired. I was quite happy to engage in debate about how we view an author's output in the light of unrelated events and/or a specific related episode, but I will not be defamed by some fool with a bizarre agenda. Okay, have I made myself clear enough now? I didn't want to waste anyone's time with a long explanation, but it seems to be what a few want. So, please listen - because if you and Wiki want the kind of nonsense spouted by Tirailleur, don't be too surprised if others say "I am not interested". DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, read what I wrote - and I do not need additional stupid remarks from others, who know nothing of the subject area, such as Tagishsimon. If Wiki is going to allow the remarks of the type by Tirailleur (who is making similar comments on a specialist board), then I am not interested. DaveHMBA (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I should be more specific about times. Within a minute of his comment above ending with "I am not interested" he blanked the article. I saw that as a disruptive response to this discussion. Doug Wellertalk14:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Doug, I was merely trying to indicate my displeasure - it seems you did notice that. That was quite a lot of work and while it is listed as
a start article, it is in fact, the current state of knowledge. Now, can I suggest you deal with the original point about the libellous comments made by Tirailleur on the BLP Talk page please? I am not interested in trying to engage in a discussion about how an author's output is dealt with in the light of other events, if you are going to allow libellous comments designed to avoid answering the point. I see however that Tirailleur paraded his own silly behaviour, so I have flagged that up and left it at that. I would prefer that it is removed, something I have been asking for since 31/10. I am not "refusing to be specific", but did not press the detail, simply to avoid a long argument. However, I have now done so above. Now, I would ask that you remove his libellous claims and let everyone else revert to editing or sensible discussion. DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much like it being insinuated that I don't know what I'm talking about -- what is it that I don't know? The Napoleonic Wars? This isn't about the Napoleonic Wars. I do know Wikipedia policy regarding legal threats, which is the subject of this discussion. The original comment was borderline, and the user should have been required to clearly retract it and clarify that it was not a threat. In all of his/her comments in this thread, he/she has instead ramped up the implication that he/she meant it as a threat. Hopefully, if/when the current block is appeal, a retraction of the legal threats will also be forthcoming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your condescending attitude was what I was talking about - being trained in the law, I do know what a libellous statement is, probably rather better than you. If you bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I objected to the claims made by Tirailleur on that basis and had made my complaint on that basis - precisely because I did not wish to drop the conversation into threats. It seems you fail to grasp this simple concept as you have repeated some nonsense twice now. However as you all seemed so keen that I should take his claims apart (at the risk of a blow-up), I took another look at the page. Oh, Tirailleur has done the job for me by revealing his own stupidity - he praises a review of a book by another author, which pointed out the author had engaged in serious invention and led to that author's disgrace. I have merely pointed out that I was the author of the review, so I am obviously quite capable of dealing with sourcing and taking an objective view of sourcing! Tirailleur should perhaps be excluded, initially, I thought for libellous statements, but maybe just for stupidity.
I have answered the specific matters above. I trust that when I say I have a legal background and take exception to libellous statements, some people here will take it on board, when I say that the statements are defamatory and as such should be removed as being against Wiki's harassment and libel policies. Then perhaps a few of you will read what I say when I said that I was complaining to Wiki as I did not wish to get into threats, of which I made none. Okay? DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying our best to understand the issue, but still failing. You may have a legal background - let us take that as read - but you are not making a good job of explaining the alleged libel. You say "he praises a review of a book by another author, which pointed out the author had engaged in serious invention and led to that author's disgrace. I have merely pointed out that I was the author of the review". Does the kernel of the libel lie in that part of your explanation? If so, I'm not seeing it. You were the author of a review. A review [asserts] that a book author engaged in serious intervention leading to the author's disgrace? But you are the review author, not the disgraced author. It may all be very clear to you. In all honesty, and with the best will in the world, it is not clear to me. Please humour us by explaining some more. --Tagishsimon(talk)20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that by following {{tq|Your condescending attitude]} with being trained in the law, I do know what a libellous statement is, probably rather better than you you are kind of defeating you own point, right? Anyway, I never insinuated that you don't know what the word "libel" meant -- I meant that if you did mean it in any kind of legal sense (which you then clarified that you did) then you should stop using it because it's not going to lead to any good news for you. Openly engaging in repeated vandalism is the best way to immediately get yourself indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia, posting blatant legal threats is a close second, and using language that implies a legal threat (which is what you did) is a very close third. A distant fourth is perhaps engaging in an edit-war right after getting unblocked for saying you won't edit-war. I'm not saying you have done 1, 2 or 4 -- what I am saying is that 1, 2 and 3 are all essentially the same as far as Wikipedia blocking policy is concerned. You really need to stop using the words "libel" and "libelous" post-haste: you can use "personal attack", and even if you are wrong you won't risk getting yourself permanently blocked from editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to spell it out again? There are two matters - no.s 1 (statement about my judgement) and 2 (little helper/supporter), which are both libellous. Point 3 was just the proof of how his own agenda is actually blinding him to a rational approach and actually shows his claims (especially No.1) are false. Okay? DaveHMBA (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Tirailleur seems to think your judgement in this matter sucks. That's his/her opinion. It is not libel for someone to specify that they think your judgement sucks. I agree that Tirailleur says "If you want to ... be his little helper". That's somewhat pissy perhaps, but not libel. One who supports, even in part, the position of another may well be labelled by an antagonist as 'a little helper'. So, no, I'm not seeing libel, at all. I'm seeing you not liking Tirailleur and/or his/her writing, and making an assertion of libel which seems to be wholly groundless. I'm sorry that I do not see things as you do, at least the the extent that it seems to be annoying you. I'm happy to be schooled some more by you as to why any element of Tirailleur writing amounts to libel. I can only say, right now, I'm completely and utterly unconvinced by your libel assertion. --Tagishsimon(talk)20:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DaveHMBA: Setting aside the question of whether the two points you mention actually are libelous in legal terms (I haven't looked at them and I don't intend to), you do realize that repeatedly characterizing them with that word is likely to get you in trouble, right? On your talk page you also called them "defamatory"[40] which is just as bad. Why can't you just called them "personal attacksmade without evidence"? Discussing this kind of matter in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than in real-world legal terms is almost certain to work out better for you in the long run, because Wikipedia is very strict about speaking in a manner that implies you are trying to intimidate your opponents with off-wiki legal action. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP adding "... years ago" to infoboxes of countless airlines
This IP appears to be a Biblical literalist who is here to promote Christian fundamentalism, Biblical literalism and creationism. Consider, for example:
[41] citing Russian propaganda site RT and arch conservative periodic The New Atlantis top cast doubt on the view that sexual orientation may be innate;
[42] removing the fact that micro- and macro-evolution have both been observed;
[43] attributing Newton's development of the idea of physical laws to the Christian doctrine (Newton was not exactly religious, he famously refused to take holy orders, which delayed his matriculation from Cambridge);
[45], claiming that the idea of genetic drift as a main mechanism of speciation is "hotly debated" among scientists (and note other contributions int hat thread);
[46] aggressively promoting highly partisan sources as a means to presenting the James ossuary as legitimate.
I have reviewed a substantial number of this users edits. They are generally tendentious, often rely on partisan and unreliable sources, and his approach in debate is extremely aggressive. In other words, a Warrior for Truth™.
The address has been stable for some time, the disruption started in June (with a block).
I think this user should be subject to a restriction. Ideally no article edits to topics beloved of the Christian right, and possibly some restriction on talk page argufying. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support anything from topic ban to an indef ban, with emphasis on the latter My last run-in with this user was with them tendentiously asking a series of leading questions and making pointed arguments at RSN with the intention of engineering a consensus to remove any source linked to talkorigins.com. While the IP pointedly refused to answer direct questions about their personal beliefs, their editing history and arguments made it clear that they were a creationist, pushing a creationist POV. This was made explicitly clear when I provided four highly reputable sources for the claim that 'evolution is a fact' off the cuff and their response was to crow about my 'inability' to provide sources to back up the claim. I have a lot of patience with people, though I may come off as snappy at times (check my history with this IP if you don't believe me). But there is no way in hell I see a place on WP for anyone pushing an agenda to the point of lying directly to another editor about what that very editor had said, in immediate response to the words being discussed. I mean, it blows my mind that anyone could be so self delusional, to the point where WP:AGF has me torn between the two extremes of Poe's law. Is it good faith to assume they knew how fundamentally ignorant and distorted that response was, and were trolling? Or is it good faith to assume they were arguing earnestly, but from a fundamentally ignorant and distorted perspective? I honestly don't know. If an editor is making AGF difficult, that's my problem. But when an editor makes it downright confusing? I'm sorry, but that's on them. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the context, it wasn't so much the "only a theory" claim, but rather a claim that even scientists agree that it's never been verified. And this was with the evidence that scientists have verified it literally having been staring them in the face, in bright blue, underlined links with expository context. Which you might recognize as being a bit further down the rabbit hole than your average creationist. In all, I get the impression that this user might well be a 'professional' creationist, in the sense of being an active member of the Discovery Institute or some other pseudo-scientific, subversive creation 'science' group. Either way, there's clearly a deliberate attempt to push their POV, and I think my diffs evince a strong CIR issue, as well. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.17:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both Guy and Mjolnir. But I don't know exactly what to do about it -- indef-blocks are not possible with IPs, so how a "ban" would be enforceable is a question that might need discussion. Is the IP blocked for three months and any further abuse from this or another IP who appears to be the same person met with another three-month block? It's minor point, but I don't see the CIR issue. The user is WP:NOTHERE, and engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence to attribute this to a lack of competence -- it all looks pretty deliberate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88:but I don't see the CIR issue... I was referring to the fact that this user apparently felt either that he could convince me I hadn't actually just put the evidence up, or that they could convince another editor that the links above his comment didn't exist by simply ignoring them and responding as if they weren't there. I've met many intelligent people, and this editor is one of them. But people (intelligent or otherwise) who demonstrate such a fundamental disconnect from the normal human experience usually run into major problems when they actually attempt to work with others. I've seen it before on WP: a user with a strong POV ends up at AE or here, and gets hit with warnings or sanctions that actually get through to them. So they try to start working with others, only to hit a deadlock at the very first disagreement because they can't understand what is being communicated to them. They quite literally cannot understand how anyone could possibly disagree with them. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.12:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yeah, I see it now. This user is either deliberately feigning idiocy in order to get a rise out of his opponents or is genuinely incompetent. How anyone could read my comment as wanting confirmation that historians don't accept the "Christ myth theory" is baffling. Additionally, "If someone with zero knowledge on Jesus historicity" implies that, yes, this user is interpreting the sentence in question as saying that the ossuary is evidence that Jesus is the Son of God, or some nonsense like that. Support indef ban (TBAN, or SBAN, or one-way IBAN with everyone who wants it thus allowing anyone to revert this IP's edits with impugnity, I don't even care). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[47] False claims about source wording. There's more to it than that, but I'm not going to get into it until some uninvolved editors start here. The thread is a bit too much of an echo chamber at the moment, with three editors who've all had much the same interactions with this editor being the only voices. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.02:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate to see this IP being considered as an incident here. A neutral editor who carefully research the accusations would be able to see that the accusations are baseless and they stem from the editors' only surface-level of knowledge on the subjects being discussed. Here are some of such examples:
JzG accuses: [48], claiming that the idea of genetic drift as a main mechanism of speciation is "hotly debated" among scientists
False. Follow the link and you will see the discussion was about REDUCTIONISM of macro-evolution to micro-evolution. It was NOT about "genetic drift as a main mechanism of speciation" as JzG falsely accuses. This isn't the first time that JzG either intentionally used a straw man fallacy or he genuinely failed to comprehend what has been said.[49]
Regarding reductionism of macro-evolution, the statement was supported with a citation to reputable publication which states:
"Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution."
"The reductive relation between microevolution and macroevolution is hotly debated."
JzG further reveals his lack of knowledge even in his false accusation with "genetic drift as a main mechanism of speciation". Unbeknownst to him, genetic drift in relationship with speciation IS also a topic that scientists continue to debate. As the Wiki page on speciation states:
"Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion."
JzG accuses: [50] attributing Newton's development of the idea of physical laws to the Christian doctrine (Newton was not exactly religious, he famously refused to take holy orders, which delayed his matriculation from Cambridge);
"This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way."
"What is often less appreciated, however, is that part of the novelty of the Newton's achievment lay in his conviction that there were laws of nature there in the first place, awaiting discovery. ... As was the case for laws of nature, the idea that mathematical relations were real had a theological justification. Individuals such as Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes and Isaac Newton were convinced that mathematical truths were not the products of human minds, but of the divine mind. God was the source of mathematical relations that were evident in the new laws of the universe. Like the Bible, the "book of nature" had also been written by God and, as Galileo was to insist, this book was "written in the language of mathematics." ... Yet, many of the leading figures in the scientific revolution imagined themselves to be champions of a science that was more compatible with Christianity than the medieval ideas about the natural world that they replaced."
JzG puts up another straw man fallacy by saying, "Newton was not exactly religious". I have never said that Newton was religious.
JzG further shows his lack of logic by stating, "Newton was not exactly religious, he famously refused to take holy orders". He does not understand that a refusal of holy orders does not automatically lessen someone's religious conviction.
Finally, even if Newton were not religious, it still does not change the fact that Newton first got the idea of physical laws from the Christian doctrine.
JzG accuses: [51] aggressively promoting highly partisan sources as a means to presenting the James ossuary as legitimate.
In the talk, JzG's accusation against the sources has been debunked. JzG has tendency to never provide any evidence for his claims.[52] On the other hand, many evidences have been cited to him, yet he refuses to accept.
MjolnirPants accuses: "[53] False claims about source wording."
The talk shows that it is MjolnirPants himself who makes a false claim because the wording, "Isaac Newton first got the idea ...", clearly exists on the cited New York Times source. (We have come to a compromise on this issue, and it looks like it was a case of simple misunderstanding.)
MjolnirPants reveals his disgust against creationism. He should be reminded of WP:NDP.
MjolnirPants fails to comprehend what was being stated, or it's a straw man fallacy. The statement which he tried to rebut was: "I can cite you a reputable source that clearly states that there exists a consensus on climate change, but I have never seen a consensus on evolution being a fact -- though I see many scientists supporting evolution as being a theory, and disagreeing on it being a fact." The keyword is CONSENSUS. None of his sources mentions anything about there existing the consensus (check them yourself). Thus, it is true that MjolnirPants could not provide a single source to back up his claim.
MjolnirPants says, "I provided four highly reputable sources for the claim that 'evolution is a fact'". One of his sources was National Center for Science Education. And he had been reminded of the irony that he was trying to rebut the very reputable source that states:
"Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven." The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts."
It should be pointed out that MjolnirPants had been presented with the publication by Kirk_J._Fitzhugh who states:
"‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations. Regardless of one’s certainty as to the utility of a theory to provide understanding, it would be epistemically incorrect to assert any theory as also being a fact. ... An emphasis on associating ‘evolution’ with ‘fact’ presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty. Acknowledging that the statement, ‘evolution is a fact’, is an incorrect assertion has the benefit of focusing our attention back on the goal of science"
But, his disparaged Dr. Fitzhugh's paper by saying, "It's a jumbled mess of conflated jargon and semantics. It's pure pedantry." He further goes to claim that he was "more qualified" than Dr. Fitzhugh to discuss the subject and "Fitzhugh's scientific training actually works against him".[54] If MjolnirPants thinks he knows better than someone like Dr. Fitzhugh who is a prominent scientist who specializes on the philosophical foundations of evolutionary theory, it is no wonder that he believes a lowly anonymous IP who disagrees with him is wrong. He does not accept that there may be other people (no matter how qualified they are) who see things differently than his point of view.
Thank you for demonstrating the problem. I don't think anyone can fail to be aware that scientifically speaking evolution is accepted as fact, and is a theory in name only due to unfalsifiability. There are no scientific findings inconsistent with current understanding of evolution. You are engaging in the classic creationist bait and switch between scientific and lay definitions of the words fact and theory. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your stance then that the theory of evolution should be called a theory in name only because the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable? And BTW, Dr. Fitzhugh is not a creationist. National Center for Science Education is not an organization for creationism either. Please understand that there are scientists who oppose to the theory of evolution being called fact on philosophical ground that "In science, theories never become facts." A National Science Teachers Association publication was another source that I had cited, which states:
"I have heard too many scientists claim that evolution is a fact, often in retort to the claim that it is just a theory. Evolution isn’t a fact."
Ahh, you've missed the latter part of my handle, I'm afraid. It's actually a three-part joke. Firstly, it refers to hammer pants, a particularly baggy pair of pants I was fond of in the early nineties. Second, it refers to my interest in Norse mythology, a subject I was quite willing to discuss at great length with anyone who gave me an excuse at the time.
Ha, I've cleverly winkled out an explanation of one of the more baffling usernames in this place. Perhaps this is ready to be closed now? Bishonen | talk16:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
In April of 2016, User:Light2021was blocked for making promotional/COI edits and abusing multiple accounts relating to Exioms (which was deleted here). In June, I unblocked his account based on what seemed to be a reasonable request. (The blocking administrator, Boing! said Zebedeeaccepted an apology from Light2021 and did not object to a possible unblock). Since then, Light2021 embarked upon a campaign redolent of sour grapes to attempt to have scores of articles deleted. Several other users (User:Davey2010, User:Ronhjones, User:Northamerica1000, User:Wikidemon) have expressed concerns with Light2021 's misapplication of deletion policy and procedure as noted in his talk page history. To be fair, Light2021 has appropriately identified a few articles about companies that were deleted with a solid consensus to do so. Given the indiscriminate approach to nominating articles, this isn't surprising, per the stopped clock principle. On the other hand, here is a small sampling of issues that Light2021 has been warned/cautioned on:
many, perhaps half, of the nominations clearly lack WP:BEFORE
the user's limited command of English leads to word-salad nominations that appear to be copy-paste fragments of miscellaneous deletion policies, with very little variation between the nomination content.
I'm proposing that Light2021 be topic-banned from deletion-related actions and discussions (speedy, prod, or AfD) for at least a year until they've demonstrated a better understanding of policy and make an effort to follow suggestions given by other editors. While it may seem harsh to include participation in deletion discussion, Light2021 's contributions to such discussions are nearly always cut-and-paste jumbled word salads, and as such are not helpful to the discussion. I've notified Light2021 of this discussion. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They've been warned plenty of times so this is well beyond an editor needing a pointer on deletion policy. A topic ban would certainly make my life easier, as I edit in this subject area, venture-funded startup companies, and part of this user's MO seems to be a disdain that the entire business sector is just hype, and giving it encyclopedic treatment it is the same as COI promotion. After their mind-numbing nominations of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delivery Hero and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo (app) hit my radar a couple weeks ago, I left them a stern warning to stop nominating articles for deletion without understanding notability policy — and was soundly rebuked by a couple admins for being too hasty and blunt. I was right, apparently. After many warnings, cautions, and attempts to engage, they do not even acknowledge that there may be a valid issue regarding their nominations (see their answer below, if you can wade through all the verbiage). Instead they lash out and make accusations. We can go through the process here and warn them again, we can impose a topic ban, or perhaps somebody can break through and can get them to listen or find another outlet for their Wikipedia editing efforts. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support editing restriction - Given the editor's stated willingness to cooperate (see below), followed quickly by yet another semi-coherent screed[58] suggesting that even when their editing privileges are in doubt they are unwilling to face the fact that they have been making bad nominations and don't understand Wikipedia's notability policy: "These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia…if you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment…Promotions being created by company." I don't see how the community can do anything other than accept the offer for mentoring. without a topic ban, but Hopefully with some help, and a clear understanding that this pattern should not repeat. I know the !votes are in favor of a ban right now., but I think that should be the last step, not this step.Either a ban is in order, or a restriction that a mentor must approve any deletion nomination, until and unless they understand and are willing to work within the notability guidelines..- Wikidemon (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)(updated 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
You are continuously trying to force your opinion where it is not even required. On the mistake you made with Speedy Keep suggestions, and your comment there : "Okay, then, SNOW keep, and speedy close if there is any more drama from the nominator" proves how desperately want to close that matter without even giving substantial proof why it is an encyclopedia material by any means. you are continuously demeaning me and harassing me with your Written tone. It is definitely not in Good faith . Even the way you are commenting as Majority vote is done and things like that? I think Admins have wit and judgement power to decide what to do. You are definitely not an admin, as you have very biased attitude toward the judgement. on the other note for this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash verdict will be out soon. As your whole argument is based on my few AfD which has been kept. Some of them I agree and some not. As I am human, can not give you 100% accuracy where other human opinion in required. You have neglected my efforts to Zero where I have contribution and helping delete over 200 articles in sort span of time. In the process I must have made few mistake, as other admins are suggesting and giving advises. i will be more careful and will ask Expert (only Admins) for my selections or doubt. I am doing my best to make Wikipedia Spam free. And for DealDash and UrbanClap I have no other thoughts than a 1000% promotions. Have patience! Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must listen to me and other non-administrators too. If you are not topic banned, or if you want a topic ban removed, you should think through whatever caused you to lash out just now with accusations and claims that you are being victimized, and try not to do that again. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Boss! (that you are definitely not). I listen to everyone perspective unbiased and in unbossy manner. Your tone is bossy, seems like I work for you, but FYI I do not! Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, there are nominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, which consist mainly of throwing a bunch of policies, guidelines, and essays around without explaining how they apply. Light2021 should be strongly encouraged to keep their nominations concise with a clear explanation of why an article should be deleted according to the deletion policy while keeping their personal feelings out of it. clpo13(talk)17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not good faith, it is WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. If I randomly nominated 100 new articles for deletion, I would be right about 95% of the time because 95% of new articles are not viable. Repeatedly nominating the other 5% that are clearly notable using nonsense rationales, and vigorously supporting those nominations with unintelligible prose, wastes countless hours of editors' time, regardless of how many other nominations confirm a stuck clock theory. FWIW, this editor's accuracy rate is well below 95%. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this logic of % can be applied in reversal as well. How the consensus and amateur close are made. It will cross over 90%. I think it should be good assessment from ends. Not as being accused by "Random" without diligence or using my intelligence or mere copy-paste job. I am confident I have not wasted my or contributors time discussing on AfD. That should be considered with neutrality non being on Personal commenting. Other are pending close. It should cross higher % close with delete. On the other hand 1000 of article are created with lack of this process. i am merely helping keeping only what really matters with Guidelines not by random means. Light2021 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My Version/Story Wikipedia clearly is not driven by sole Reference based article creation or promotions that is happening on large degree of quantity here. Only few mention in popular media and creation of Wikipedia article is used to build high degree of online promotions. Such as the case with many articles I have nominated.
I have nominated Afd and Speedy deletions and contributing tirelessly making Wikipedia Spam Free. due to this effort, more than 200 articles got deleted in such a sort span of time. Please Check my AfD counter and %. More than 80% Success closer with Delete. Over 99% Delete vote support.
As I have raised many time the issue of Vote count is given priority and all the contributions being ignored by citing GNC or other guidelines forgetting One Paramount fact: "Why such article makes an Encyclopedia Material". Such as this discussion is going on Because controversial AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). If you read the article, there is nothing to write except investment release and brief company profile. As this same issue is grave concern, where no one knows such company and blatant promotions are made. It has compromised the integrity of Wikipedia as World's most Trusted source of knowledge. Where anyone is able to write an article about their startup or themselves by citing GNC and few media references.
Other such as this being protected by same measure and misuse of Wikipedia. There are nothing to write about them. only interest is to lure their customer, Employee or shareholders. The way they are being covered by media is highly questionable in nature. Influenced by company PR and nothing else. : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grofers or Forever (website). There are no reference and Worldwide notability of the subject. Read these article and anyone with little Common-sense can say this is definitely not an Encyclopedia material by any measure possible. Either they come to the category of TooSoon or others as mentioned below.
Few Important Wikipedia Links I Would like to mention apart from GNC, when and how I do my selections:
If community think that such Admin warning are justified. Please Go ahead and block me. We are already compromised and even failing in the creations of World's most notable Encyclopedia ever created. Warning has been given to me several time by admins or editors because some Admin/Editors are unhappy with my style or Language. Where the matter is Thousands of spam is being created on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article that got saved by Consensus or Votes are these few among the others As % is mentioned by Admin above. These article have nothing to write but 1 Paragraph about their company profile or themselves. How does it make anything Encyclopedia notable. It is grave concern that such blatant proportionals articles are being kept with such Vote numbers discussions. As Wikidemon keep going on his time Value. I think he is forgetting I am spending enough time not nominating random articles. If require I am ready to give justification on each and every article if he can mention. I have not done anything without using my intelligence or even common-sense. cases are like need only COMMON SENSE to judge how such article are even created. not forget the check Vote count and who actually contributed. COI or possible Paid PR editors. They do not Value anything close to Encyclopedia.
Or I can give many such others with No-Consensus or Vote close if it helps. Moreover it is questioning on My Intelligence and this is a Humiliations made by OhNoitsJamie & Wikidemon for making comments such as stopped clock principle & WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. Where Wikidemon is forgotten how desperately he made an non-admin close of highly promoted COI disputed article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash . These admins are making humiliations and mockery of an indidual as if they created this Platform and they know evertything. Where on several they are Wrong and not knowing the exact things. This is shame of Such admins who gives lecture on someone's Intelligence. (Sorry for 'Shame' word, but it is my bitter opinion about them). Light2021 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we can find a solution which allows this user to continue to make productive edits, which he does, but also protects the encyclopedia from disruptive behaviors, which he also exhibits (an intermediate step could be limiting his number of AFD nominations). As for the disruptive behaviors, this user needs to stop making WP:SOAP edits like this to the talk pages of articles that he's nominated and which have survived AFD. He's been counseled numerous times to use WP:DRV when he disagrees with a deletion decision, but instead has resorted to posting long protest screeds on the talk pages of articles which he unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See here and here as well. User also needs to stop adding speedy deletion tags to articles which he's nominated for AFD and which have survived the process. See here. The extreme tag-bombing needs to stop too. He's been routinely adding up to twenty top-level tags to articles, including erroneously using the hoax tag. See here, here, here and here. This is disruptive. This biggest issue isn't the disruptive editing, though--that can be addressed if a user is willing to WP:LISTEN. But this user doesn't appear to be. For example, when an admin asked him to stop erroneously adding hoax tags to numerous articles, his response wasn't exactly constructive. There is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality displayed here. At a minimum, the user needs to 1) stop PRODding articles which have survived AFD 2) stop posting WP:SOAP essays on the talk pages of articles which have survived AFD 3) stop tag-bombing and 4) refrain from renominating failed AFDs only two weeks after they've been closed, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). He should use WP:DRV instead. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This user has been repeatedly warned about their disruptive AFDs, tag-bombing, talkpage rants etc etc and yet the disruption still continues, The lack of English & walls of food salad don't help (We should accept everyone here however the English needs to be of readable standard which it isn't (Some bits are understandable but most aren't)), The editor is unfortunately disrupting the project despite the help of many editors and admins, IMHO the editor should be topic banned from everything that relates to deletion (AFD, CSD, RFD, CSD) although this wouldn't need to be indef. –Davey2010Talk18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts are coming from an individual Davey2010Talk who is contributor on Promotional articles. And Closes Non-Admin on many controversial AfD. Where even discussion is needed. Easy way to get rid of me saying Lack of English. This is ridiculous.Light2021 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh what "promotional" articles have I worked on ? ... I have no COI if that's what you're referring too?, Wrong no one wants to get rid of you ... If we wanted to get rid of you you would've been blocked many moons ago. –Davey2010Talk19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite those "Couple of AfD" and what about others? and My Point of view? Just coming here making Support Davey without giving deeper thoughts. Can you be specific and neutral. Give both perspective. Do not go by the Vote. Light2021 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I wasn't sure I would support this proposal (see my comments above), but seeing that the user has responded to this report not with introspection and collaboration but by making a series of ad hominem attacks on other editors and attempting to canvas other users here, it seems there is no other choice if the disruptive behavior is to be stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for now at least. I noticed this discussion linked on the editor's talk page, after I'd come to give them some advice on what G11 and A7 mean after having to decline a whole bunch of their requests while reviewing the spam queue. A couple of requests were valid, but most were not. And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem. I would hope this problem could be solved by giving some advice, but the reactions to previous attempts at doing that don't give me much hope. So, let's make it clear, Light2021: Would you be willing to, first, slowing way down on your deletion nominations, and maybe getting a second opinion from someone experienced in the area before putting a nomination forth? Maybe that would help you get your feet under you and learn what should be deleted and what shouldn't. But while it's not expected that everything you nominate will wind up deleted (we all can miss something, or sometimes new information comes to light), continuous nominations with tenuous justifications at best are a waste of the community's time. Your accuracy doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to be reasonable; you can't just throw nominations at the wall to see if they stick. If you're not willing to change course here, I see a topic ban as probably the only realistic outcome. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your advise is sound. And I will do my due diligence if in doubt with other admins, like what actions should be best - AfD, Speedy or Proposed delete. I always admire and would love adhere to your suggestions. Still being realistic I am not perfect being, will make few mistakes in the process but will try my best to keep it bare minimum possible. I will do my best to nominate with more care and if in doubt will ask the expert advise as well. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
conditional support I'd like to see the attempts made by others (Safehaven86, Seraphiblade) tried first, but with a very short rope. I'll be pleased, but honestly surprised, if they do work given the pretty high level of belligerence I've seen. I'm saying "conditional support" because I'd like to have a consensus established here that there is community support for a topic ban so that if there are continued problems the ban can be enacted without delay. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Given the rampant promotionalism on Wikipedia, such a ban would not be productive. I find myself agreeing with the nominator in most cases. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash showed the typical problems with such promotional articles. Opinions on what constitute promotion vary, but penalising an editor because they happen to be less inclusive than others is not the appropriate course of action, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree that the user could do with a little help and guidance, and might benefit from slightly less zeal, but the nomination record speaks for itself: a large number of these articles are blatantly promotional and should not be here. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This appears to be a case where mentorship would be beneficial given that in general their deletion requests appear to be reasonable, if not always following the process required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do think Light2021 is trying to operate in good faith, and as noted above they have identified many articles that deserve deletion. But the competence required for the process is just not there. The nomination mentioned above by Davey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, shows the problem. Regardless of whether the article is kept or not, the AfD nomination consists of an incoherent rant about paid advertising and a dozen links to unrelated or semi-related essays. That's not an acceptable nomination. Add to that the history of trying to speedy-delete articles that have already been through AfD, and it shows a basic misunderstanding of our processes. IMO Light2021 should be banned from direct participation in the nomination process. If someone is willing to mentor them, as suggested above, Light2021 could identify articles they think should be deleted and let the mentor nominate them. Or let Light2021 propose articles for tagging or nomination, but get the nominations approved and improved by the mentor before submitting them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, On the Current ongoing AfD I have made some comments of AfD. You can decide yourself Whether my assessment is wrong or right. These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia Material. Do not go by my opinion. Need to check for yourself. If you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment that these are highest degree of Promotions being created by company to promote themselves using Wikipedia as platform. They have nothing to write except brief profile about themselves. On the other I have accepted suggestions by other admins. I will do talk first to other admins before nominating if I have even 1% of doubt, if that is considered as my learning from this one. Thanks. I have request, Please Go through article and discussions as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination)Light2021 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A serious issue is that Light2021 has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of assuming bad faith, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and ranting in a battleground manner against users on multiple article talk pages and user talk pages, inre various matters, including deletion, other users' !voting, user intentions, etc. See User talk:Safehaven86 § SPAM OR WIKIPEDIA CHOICE for an example, and be sure to view content via the links provided by Safehaven86 on their user page there, which demonstrates these ongoing problems exhibited by Light2021. There is also the problem of drive-by overtagging and incorrectly adding the {{hoax}} template to articles. In addition to those listed above in this discussion, the following are additional incidences of incorrect use of the hoax template: diff, diff, diff. As denoted above in this discussion, when I asked the user to stop (diff), they didn't recognize or address the problem at all, and instead chose to rant about various other matters (diff, diff). North America100019:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might disagree with your opinions and your ways of dealing things. It does not mean you are wrong or in a similar fashion it does not mean I do not listen to anyone or I am doing things the way I want. I am working in a community, and listen to their perspective. But forced opinion based on biased or simply not liking me for any sort of reason. As done in either Bossy manner (from some editor) or few others. Definitely not you and others as I admire and ready to listen and understand. I present my opinion. I will keep control and will try to put my point in a very precise manner if not so direct (blunt). As I think my writing tone is an issue here, not what I am doing. I think the best for this platform, and definitely not in bad faith as accused by few (not you). Otherwise i would not be here wasting my time. I love this platform and want to contribute my part. Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing up legitimate concerns over an editor isn't wikihounding, Might I suggest you re-read WP:AGF - If you have an issue with NA1K then start a new thread and stop derailing this one. –Davey2010Talk02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010Talk you need to look what and how you say things. Questioning Admins as if you are the one who knows everything, where your misjudgment and biased is clearly written here. Whole thing is done because of your (including few) personal opinion and disliking of something/Someone. As you can go to any extend by doing anything, such as closing Keep with selective bias where your opinions lacks the neutrality. I can quote where you have closed AfD so early without getting to en end, on the other hand other clear Delete judgement are being Missed by you accidentally? closing DealDash with no reasoning. and many others. Even this Whole ANI is biased and being ignoring efforts of others, and counting only selective things to build and arguments. and Even try to forcing opinion like the other one is doing above in a bossy manner. No doubt you both are "Non-Admins" for such biased and selective opinions. As far as I know, David has clean history being an admin. I doubt yours. Light2021 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest you stop blaming others and look in the mirror - The only person at fault here is you!, I have far more productive things to do on here than to get into a mud-slinging match with you. –Davey2010Talk11:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sadly previous attempts by the community to work with this editor have not been productive. The battleground behavior and casting of aspersions by this user is not a one-off occurance, it is a continuing pattern of disruption that merits a 1 year Time Out in deletion areas, widely construed. There are lots of other non-deletion areas of this site to constructively work on. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Surprise! This is coming from the person whose argument and discuss failed to keep many articles on AfD that I nominated. I understand your disappointments clearly. There are many I disappointed because I have to be not much likable If I am into Speedy Deletions/ AfD business on Wikipedia. There are few others if they come here and want to desperately block me. So for some time peacefully people like you can support filthy amount of Spam that is going on to ruin the whole credibility of Wikipedia. this is what you call "battleground". Please judge me by my actions and efforts I put on this wikipedia. Not by mere opinion by few people. Reality and Opinion will come out by wisdom. Please note those Supporters of Block me are no admins in most of cases. They have their opinions and sheer disappointment with me with definite reasons I understand. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warrior and Sock Puppeteer
I was going to take this to the edit warring noticeboard (as is the standard), but Zjec now appears to be using a specific IP range to further their edit war ([59], [60], [61]). The reason I didn't take this to WP:SPI is because, in my experience, they mostly deal with active IP addresses. Zjec seems to change the IP addresses, while remaining in the same range.
Essentially, Zjec has been edit warring at Hulk (comics) with biased edits ([62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]). Zjec wants to remove material pertaining to the 1970's Incredible Hulk television series simply because they dislike the show for not being close enough to the comic book (see Talk:Hulk (comics)). But despite replying to the discussion, Zjec never stopped edit warring. This user's edits directly violate WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and have been opposed by multiple editors who have warned Zjec to stop. Zjec has been given every opportunity to cease this absurd behaviour, yet they chose not to. And now, they brought an IP range into this. DarkKnight214900:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian.thomson seems to have handled the situation by blocking Zjac for 60 hours. Hopefully, Zjac will discuss the matter in the future if they still disagree. Edit warring and ignoring the points made by other editors was not the answer. DarkKnight214901:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Blocked for 60 hours (WP:DUCK), will lock the article and extend the block if I see further sockpuppetry. We may need to consider applying 1RR or 0RR restriction or perhaps even a topic ban on Zjec as this is the third time he's been blocked for edit warring, and not the first time he's edit warred on this article. I would start to say that we should just go with 1RR or 0RR on the basis that he does seem to be helpful when he's not edit warring, such as creating articles on characters, but he gets to be rather WP:OWN-y about them, ignoring WP:CITE and WP:RS. Looking over other edits, they are [largely unsourced, and one could accuse this of being WP:FANCRUFT, just over 1,200 words for a five issue miniseries. As such, a topic ban from comic related articles may not be the worst option for the site, though I'd rather see what would happen with 1RR and some strong reminders to stick to WP:V and WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson: I would give my own suggestion on that, but I have no experience with this user prior to this user prior to this event, so I'll leave the opinions on that matter to those more qualified to give them. I will, however, comment when needed when it comes to discussion on this specific edit war from Hulk (comics). DarkKnight214902:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand his unblock request is just droning on his "I don't like it" reasons for edit warring, completely refusing to address the sockpuppetry or edit warring. At least an article ban on Hulk (and probably a 1rr restriction elsewhere) is starting to seem appropriate, though he is still pissy from the block. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know it might seem a bit gloating of me but I would gladly not see him be able to edit any more any Hulk articles since he's clearly way to biased about it.*Trekker (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked Zjec and *Treker for both violating 3RR last week; *Treker quickly apologised, made a good unblock request and was unblocked; AFAIK Zjec said nothing. I'm not going to review the latest unblock request as I've already blocked; however a neutral admin might want to mention this to them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the unblock request, the user clearly seems to be missing the point. I had hoped that they would learn from this in order to be more productive in the future, but instead they refuse to see any error in their actions. A topic ban or 1RR would be logical, since this doesn't appear to be Zjec's first rodeo. DarkKnight214915:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zjec appears to be using the 2a02:c7d:5d47:f900::/64 range to edit war. I've blocked it for 60 hours, corresponding to Ian's block on the account. (It'll last a little longer, but meh.) Bishonen | talk17:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Darkknight2149, if it's only one article being affected, the best solution is to request a fairly lengthy semi-protection (which prevents IPs from editing) of the article at WP:RFPP, and cite "persistent IP-hopping sockpuppetry" as your rationale. (That would of course be in addition to reporting the registered account at WP:ANEW if warranted.) Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: I usually only request protection if there's multiple disruptive users on the page or if it's a particularly elusive sock puppeteer. Zjec only seems to be sticking to a specific IP range. DarkKnight214917:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Darkknight2149, no one is going to block an IP range if they can help it, because that unfailry affects uninvolved people. Three specific IPs have now been blocked, but the blocks will expire in about 30 hours from now. The only logical way to handle persistent IP-hopping disruption is semi-protection (or at the least, pending changes), which can be instituted for longer term and does not prevent uninvolved IPs from making edit requests, etc. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender:, re: "no one is going to block an IP range if they can help it", that's not so in the case of IPv6 (the long funny-looking ones). I will block an IPv6 /64 range without a qualm, as it is practically always assigned to a single user. A block on such a range won't inconvenience anybody else. If you look at the three IPs in question, you'll see that their first four groups of figures are the same, 2a02:c7d:5d47:f900. That's the sign of a /64 range, and I have therefore, as I mentioned above, blocked the 2a02:c7d:5d47:f900::/64 range. Not just the three separate IPs, which would be like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. If disruption from the range continues after the block expires, I'll be glad to re-block it for longer. (I made the first block pretty short so as to respect the block time Ian Thomson had applied to the Zjec account.) The new IP, 113.210.52.218, from Thailand, is something else. Darkknight, 113.210.52.218 has been blocked, and if Zjec comes back from yet another open proxy (which I suspect 113.210.52.218 is, because I don't think his ass is in Thailand; the IPv6 range he originally used geolocates to Suffolk), I suggest that should be the breaking point for semi. I don't actually think semi on this type of article is as harmless as you seem to, Softlavender, so I'd prefer to wait till then. Bishonen | talk16:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I made the block short in the hope that he'd learn his lesson. Assuming 113.210 is Zjev, I'm inclined to make the block indefinite now (seeing has most of his good-faith edits were more benign than actually useful and he is now editing in bad faith), though I haven't had breakfast yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all good. Not much sense in leaving 2A02:C7D:5D47:F900:0:0:0:0/64, which I take to be Zjev's personal range, at large, then. I've extended the block on that as well to a month. Bishonen | talk11:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Known puppet Profile101 is leaving rather violent messages on their new sock's talk page, mainly aimed at Anna Frodesiak, he is also (still) claiming to be an admin and "if we dont unblock him, he will ban all of us"... Dear oh dear... NordicNightfury12:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
B!SZ revoked talk page access. You might contact a CU for a range block, but sometimes the only thing you can do is request page protection for their favorite targets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth requesting a community site ban for Profile101? Or is he de-facto banned, in which case, the ban template can go on his original user page. Class455 (talk)19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The insult he hurled at Nordic Nightfury, calling him a "fucky, disgusting Belly Button", gave me my first laugh of the day. (I'm rather fond of belly buttons myself.) Deor (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and the insult he hurled at me when he reverted my edit "You delete that section again, i'll throw you in fuck language" made me laugh my fucking head off (sorry for dropping the "F bomb"). How exactly can this person physically throw me in a four lettered word. His insults are meaningless and woudn't hurt even a baby if I'm being brutally honest. Class455 (talk)22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem much point in putting any particular template on his user page; that wouldn't stop him. I'd advise revert, block, ignore. He's very fond of attention, and even created an ANI complaint about himself once. Deor, I agree he's not skilled with the rhetoric, and it would be surprising if anybody's feelings were actually hurt by his attempts at hardhitting invective. Bishonen | talk20:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with DENY proponents. Even though that hasn't worked well so far, it seems the sensible choice, especially considering his nature. I shouldn't have even posted at his talk. And do not worry about his posts offending me. Far, far from it, really far, as far as you can get. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with DENY too then. But if there was a sock attacking pages, and no admins who knew about the case were about, do we report to AIV or SPI? Class455 (talk)22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion to admins who deal with this one if you recognize who it is - block with talk page access revoked. If he has talk page access, his unblock request is invariably abusive and requires tpa to be revoked anyway, so it will save some time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, Boing!, I should have done that with Profile101 Frodesiak, who blanked this section, and saved myself some trouble. I'll try to remember next time. You can see that the socks are sometimes pretty easy to spot... not always, though. Bishonen | talk11:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Behavior of IP user
In the last few days, 80.63.3.167(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been displaying a failure to assume good faith to other users, and an apparent lack of knowledge on certain Wikipedia policies. Firstly, he had a small conflict about the inclusion of an infobox for the ISIL territorial claims article ([72][73]). For the second diff, in his edit summary, he reverted the deletion of the infobox under the reasoning of WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior by opposing users, and that "status quo is kept until something else is decided on the talk page, conclusion was to include an infobox and you should respect that". However, Greyshark09 had earlier informed him after the first diff that "the outcome of the [RfC] discussion says infobox can be included, but which infobox is yet to be decided". Which is true. In other words, the IP user seems to be ignorant of the real meaning of the RfC consensus.
Secondly, he re-added the 2016 Nice attack article to the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 after I removed it from said list because it was currently unconfirmed as terrorism. His reasoning for the reversion of my edit? WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior by opposing users. In reality, there have been discussions throughout the Nice attack article's talk page history ([74][75][76][77][78][79]), the latest of which is still ongoing. Clearly there's a huge, ongoing point of debate and contention over whether the Nice attack should be considered as a terrorist attack and not a small conspiracy of Wikipedia users operating under WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
I feel this kind of ignorant behavior, on the part of this IP user, needs to be addressed and I suggest a warning to him at the very least. Parsley Man (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the topic of the first part of this report regarding the infobox dispute. There is no consensus as to which infobox is to be included, however, since there was an infobox prior to the first RfC it is status quo to keep it and the consensus currently lies FOR an infobox... . A second RfC should have been opened to decide whether or not to change the infobox to a different type - not wholesale removing of the one already there. Hence I think Greyshark is in the wrong on that one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In DatGuy's own words from the RfC: "There is consensus FOR an infobox to be included in the text. However, there is not yet consensus for which infobox to be put in. I suggest either starting another RfC or starting an informal discussion, notifying the previous voters." Looking at that consensus, one can mistake that kind of wording as also encompassing the original infobox, just like I did. Parsley Man (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the second point Parsley Man, usually what affects one article, affects only that article. The discussion at Talk:2016 Nice attack (which I am a part of) has no bearing on the article at List of terrorist incidents in July 2016. Again, this is something that has to be taken to the talk page, you are both edit-warring on that page. I won't revert if you revert me back, but, I highly recommend you both go to the talk page. Finally on the very last point, yes the IP has a tendency to claim Harrassment where it is not actually happening - that is a problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's not your fault. I understand your actions across all pages, it just so happens that I am also involved across all the same pages and see it differently to you. I'm writing up a comment on the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 page directing them to the Nice attack page. Since you've already done it. Whether or not we get an Orlando shooting proportions "discussion" or not I don't know, I'm not sure Breitbart will be as concerned with this one as with that one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Christ.. WP:DEADHORSE and WP:GRUDGE. In case you can't comprehend, I don't really want to interact with you. We came across each other badly, and so be it. Good news for you: You can have ownership of the article, as I don't really feel for engaging in a conversation with you, as it will be a very unpleasant experience. You can also have this last statement from me: I consider you being self-righteous, rude and a WP:POVPUSHER, you don't respect WP:DTA, and it's ironic that you claim moral highground and lecture ME about edit warring, while 1) your ban log shows 4 incidents of edit warring [80], and 2) you violated WP:3RR a sickening number of times at the mentioned article - take a look at [81], you deserve to be banned for it.
I won't go further with my complaints, as I don't want to waste energy and mood on a repulsive personality like of yours and I don't feel for familiarizing me with the huge bureaucracy of Wikipedia. You're not being constructive, but rather vengeful, so yes, it's actually hard to assume good faith - and as for now, I expect that you turn down the noise, and I in turn won't be bothering you any longer. Or in a more direct and honest expression, pardon my French: just shut up and do whatever you want on the article. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
POV pushing IP on Jimmy Page
I recently full-protected Jimmy Page's article after an edit war broke out over some unpleasant and potentially BLP-violating content. The conversation on the talk page hasn't really got anywhere except to point out that the main antagonist in the debate, a hopping IPv6 editor, is too trustworthy on using Richard Cole as a source and taking disagreement quite personally. Going forward, I think the article should be long-term pending changes protected when the full-protection expires tonight, but I've stuck my 2c worth on the talk page enough now to think I would be too WP:INVOLVED to take action myself, and would rather another admin did it. (Since the IP changes multiple times a day, I have not notified them on any previous talk page as I don't think it would be read). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ritchie. For what it is worth, I did not find your contributions too WP:INVOLVED. This controversy has been going on since 2013. From the exchange on the Talk page it is clear that the IP is pushing his own point of view and not here to try and find consensus. Let's ask @Drmies: to glance over it. Karst (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Why? Because I come from the land of ice and snow? Indefinite semi-protection applied, for reasons (briefly) laid out on talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the indef semi-protection is warranted (God kills a kitten every time that happens). A minute of web search found decent sourcing for the disputed incident. I left some comments on the talk page, and made an attempt to ask 2605:* (the ipv6 editor) to reach a compromise. There was relatively little difference between the consensus version of July 2016 and the extra words that 2605 wanted to add at the time. The main issue was that 2605 wanted to SYNTHesize that the Page-Mattix relationship was "illegal" when the sources used then didn't use that word. But other sources do use it so it seems simplest to just cite one (with in-text attribution). Pamela Des Barres is probably the best-known groupie historian and she uses the word illegal in her book (mentioned on article's talk page). Drmies and/or other admins, could you look in on the page over the next few days and unprotect if the problem settles down? Typing "Lori Mattix" into youtube search finds tons of additional material that I'm not masochistic enough to watch. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd dispute that characterization of Des Barres (she stayed friendly with Page after they split) but that's a content matter, that shouldn't be locked up by protecting the article. Similarly with the stuff shown in the VH1 documentary. Youtube has nothing to do with it, it's just a place where you can view the documentary if you want to. The main thing is to treat the facts neutrally. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically over a period of time various IPs have edit-warred to exaggerate claims of illegality despite the source used not making such claims. Its also an event that the subject has neither been charged with, investigated for, questioned or in fact had any legal outcome at all. So over-emphasising the 'illegal' aspects is a clear violation of UNDUE when not impacting on the BLP aspects. A relatively stable consensus has been achieved over the years to mention the incident, but to not go into tabloid-level salacious detail and use neutral wording. I didnt think it was likely indef semi-prot would be granted so I have not applied for it in the past, but it is an ongoing problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with indef semi-protection. There are serious BLP problems with insinuating that someone's conduct was illegal or a crime when they have never been charged, let alone convicted of any wrongdoing. We don't get to make that call. The IP should also be warned for accusing people of COI without evidence. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this thread yesterday and left a comment on the article's talk page and now have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet. It's a crying shame editor's are allowed to do this without any evidence or repercussions.--Isaidnoway(talk)21:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war of July 2016 that I looked at (links on talk page) didn't want to insert a lot of unverified material other than inserting the word "illegal" (the other phrasing changes weren't extensive and seemed resolvable by discussion). I agree that the people trying to put in these changes seemed to be axe-grinding. But the illegality of the affair and the participants' concern about it at the time are well-documented, e.g. Pamela Des Barres, Let's Spend the Night Together (2007), p. 182:
Lori says Jimmy called her every day when he got back to England, and in 1975 when Zeppelin played Madison Square Garden, he flew her to New York to stay with him at the Drake Hotel. "That was when their gig money got stolen and the FBI was investigating. Everybody was paranoid about me being around because I was underage. Zeppelin's manager was flipping out. He said, `You've gotta send her home. She can't be at the hotel with the FBI sniffing around.' ... "
This is in contrast with the vast quantities of drugs that rock musicians and concertgoers used in those days, whose illegality nobody has ever cared about and which are discussed today without any sense of controversy or shame. So I think that the underage issue is notable and should be mentioned (neutrally, with citations) in the article's description of the affair if the affair is included at all. And I think Mattix should be listed under "partners" since according to Des Barres (p. 181), the relationship went on for more than two years. The protection seems like using technical tools to win a content dispute, not nice. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one is insinuating that he was ever charged. What is well documented is that he was once in a situation that was seen as legally hazardous enough to cause a stir within his organization at the time, though in the end, nothing happened to him over it. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I smell a sock. Not really sure who, but a week old editor getting involved with AfD and being disruptive generally leads me to that conclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I see he's done quite a lot of work at a cemetery article both under this account and as an IP. I'm wrong about this just being trolling. For some reason, he's decided this tone makes him seem smart -- or possibly grown up. If he keeps it up, let's just keep up the civility warnings and the situation will resolve itself with a block. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. For some reason my computer didn't load all those when I was looking through his contributions the first time. Struck the sock comment (looked like mostly disruptive AfD behavior to me at the time). Agree here. Civility warnings are the way to go I think. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SLBedit disruptive behavior
This user is constantly reverting my edits, harassing me in talk pages and is constantly preventing my contributes. It looks like he s always chasing my edits to revert them. He acts like a child, always wanting to do the last edit, other users contributions in SL Benfica related pages are always wrong, he reverts my and other users edits and then writes similar information he just reverted.
When he reverts my work he always says to talk on the talk page but he never does that. He just reverts the edits without talking first. Other users need to discuss first, he can revert any time he wants.
This user disrespects other users contributions, and does not respect the assuming good faith principle and he is always starting edit wars with me and other users like Besteirense (talk·contribs). He has a provocative attitude, and thinks he is always right in his edits, he does not respect other users.
Dennis Brown, I understood your warning and I stopped my comments in this user's talk page. But he continues to harass me, reverting my work. Also, he does not denies anything that I said. I have proof that he reverts other people work without any reason at all, just so he can make the last edit. Also, one time he lied about me not putting references. P3DRO (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a 10 year old wikipedian and I'm seriously considering leaving this place due to this user's behavior. I do not have time to his lack of respect and good faith and childish attitude. P3DRO (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 1 September 2014, SLBedit was warned for breaking the 3RR. 1
On 10 January 2015, user Wackelkopp (talk·contribs) reported SLBedit for his edit-warring behavior. 2
On 2 June 2015, SLB edit reported PeeJay2K3 (talk·contribs) for his edit wars and his breaking of the 3RR. The same happened on 18 July 2016 with user Italia2006 (talk·contribs) and later with me. This is his game, he starts edit wars and makes users break the 3RR so he can report them.
On the same page, a kid from Benfica played a friedly match and I updated the squad box. He reverted my edit and edited the page himself with the same info. I warned him in his talk page and he ignored me. 1
On 28 September 2016 he reverted Besteirense (talk·contribs) without any reason. He later used some sadly excuse ("Fooled by UEFA website") just so he could edit the same information he had reverted. 1
On 30 August 2016 I deleted unwanted information from one Benfica player page. He started a edit war, said to discuss the information in the talk page. I wrote in his talk page and he stoped reverting me. 1, 2, 3
On 25 October he reverted my edit in the Benfica U19s page and didn't want to discuss it on the talk page.1, 2,
On the same day he misjudged my words and reported me. He assumed my words were pejorative when they were not. 1 (As I said, I did not mean "canalha" in that way. In portuguese you can call "canalha" to kids as in "I have no patience to put up with the kids[canalha]".
On 30 October I starded a discussion on that page's talk section with four other users. SLBedit came to the page with harassing me with ironys. He had reported me for my words in his talk page while he was always ignoring me however he felt injured when I ignored him and went crying to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football so everyone could see. What a childish behavior. 1, 2
On 1 November, user Threeohsix (talk·contribs) made a complaint abou him being a warmonger. 1
Today he reverted me two times in the U19s page. Also with the same comment about my needing to talk in the TP when he never does that. 1, 2
He thinks he his the voice of the reason, others need to talk in the talk page but he can revert when he wants. He does not respect other people's opinion, he starts edit-wars. He his currently harasing me and other users who also edit on SL Benfica stuff with his reverts. P3DRO (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many many more examples of him reverting me and harassing me and other users. With me it's basically stuff related with SL Benfica since he thinks he is only one that is right concerning that club. P3DRO (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you don't link the actual diffs, it makes it impossible to investigate. I have no idea what group of articles you are referring to, you have to use real diffs showing the edits themselves. You know them, you can produce them quickly, it would take someone else all night to, so they will instead choose to ignore the thread. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) And? 2) And? 3) I report users if I think it's necessary. 4) And? 5) And? 6) You mean the edit war that you started and that got us both blocked only because I added this number. 7) When? 8) When? 9) Bullshit. I was fooled. You never assume good faith. 10) You removed that sourced information by force aka edit warring. 11) Proof? 12) "Canalha" is indeed offensive and you were warned by an administrator. 12) More bullshit accusations. 13) Threeohsix, who did not assume good faith, was wrong according to GiantSnowman 14) What? If you want to remove something that is properly sourced and related to the article, discuss it on the talk page first. More bullshit coming from P3DRO. SLBedit (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, keep fighting and talking smack about each other. It makes it easier to block both of you and not have to worry about the details. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also user Qed237 (talk·contribs) said about SLBedit, and I quote "SLBedit seems to try and bully his way looking at #User:Italia2006 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned user(s)) above where he did excatly the same thing. He wars then reports the other editor." linkP3DRO (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The edit-war game is SLBedit's game, he likes to tease other users. He has proveked me, Besteirense, PeeJay2K3, Italia2006. Threeohsix said he is a warmonger. Qed237 said he is a bully. He thinks he is the only user right in stuff concerning SL Benfica and disrespects other contributions by other users. P3DRO (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Dennis Brown was trying to say, but it's being failed to be applied by you two, is to stop attacking each other and provide the necessary diffs to let users to make sense of this complaint. The fact that both are calling each other by attempting to prove one is a bully, one is provoking the other and whatnot is not helpful, is childish and it's battleground behaviour if I am not mistaken. I am going to say as simple as I can: Stop it all. If one ignored the other, it would be much more helpful. But instead y'all are going after each other like children and it's acceptable to block users based on that alone. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑01:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not provoking him, I am ignoring him. On this page he said he would seek a third opinion with Always Learning but you never did. He lied about me not adding refs just to report me, when I did put a reference from zerozero. He is here crying and pouting because I am ignoring him when he did not respond to my messagens in his talk page about Reinildo or his disruptive behavior. I am not digging anything, I'm proving SLBedit is constantly disrespecting me and other users. P3DRO (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent example of attacks and badgering. Stop it. Work on your complaint and provide diffs or else it could be considered as personal attacks or your thread will be ignored. Take these advices by Dennis and I to heart and listen very carefully. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑01:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was tag, I might say something, I first knew SLBedit as Fixed4u (talk·contribs), which was blocked for 3RR but continued on editing, either logged out or with other account. Of course, a person like this will not go away, will just create another account and start again. You can change the account, but the mannerisms stick , that's why I was able to identify him when he taught it would be fun to vandalise multiple articles on Portuguese football. Eventually I reported him without mentioning him to Mattythewhite, but he did nothing. SLBedit must have saw it, because he started a massive self revert on himself, only on articles I've created, probably trying to sugarcoat me to not press the subject. Check his edits from 18 February 2016 from 5:29 to 6:17. What kind of innocent person would do that?. Also, the IP 85.240... that associate with him has long been editing, in here, he removed sources because he thinks they're biased against Benfica, here's with his account, also claiming that the same source is biased. I'm not gonna do much more diffs because his whether his using his IP, previous account or current account, his mannerism and editing pattern are the same: just stats update and other gnome like behavior, almost no editing summaries, several edits in the same article to add just a few bytes and more obvious, a general tendency to attract conflict, edit wars and content dispute. It's up to the admins to do what they think best. It's my first edit in Administrators' noticeboard, and I only did it, because I cannot edit freely Benfica content without having to spent my time arguing with SLBedit. The only way to deal with him is avoid the articles he's most active. --Threeohsix (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just notified about this since my name was used above in a false citation from P3DRO. He linked to a discussion (diff) where I said "Both editors needs block immediately for edit warring. Where are admins?", yet he somehow claim I said ""SLBedit seems to try and bully his way looking at #User:Italia2006 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned user(s)) above where he did excatly the same thing. He wars then reports the other editor." These kind of false citations are serious and not good. Qed237(talk)11:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you called SLBedit a bully. Since diffs were not provided to prove this, I'd call this a personal attack. Both editors need to stop bashing each other and either be blocked or propose an IBAN. Clearly these two editors are incapable of cooperating with each other, engage in 3RR and edit war violations, engage in uncivil and battleground behaviour, probably also engage in personal attacks, and so on. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑14:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an administrator, but I would suggest a week long block for both editors first so that they can really think about their behaviour. It is always best if editors could talk to eachother, so I would wait with IBAN. If things dont improve after a longer block, IBAN is a good idea. Qed237(talk)15:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237: The link is this YOUR QUOTE. You said it on the third paragraph of the Comments: section. This is the full quote:
@Callmemirela: user Threeohsix (talk·contribs) summarizes my position with this sentence: "(...) I cannot edit freely Benfica content without having to spent my time arguing with SLBedit". I edit content with other useres like Threeohsix, Besteirense, The Replicator, etc., and there isn't a single edit-war with them. With SLBedit he does it always. The problem here it's the fact that he does not respect others contributions and he thinks that his way is always the right way. I cannot edit with him constantly reverting my work. This user lied so he could report me. He lied again we he said he would seek a third opinion and he never did. His modus operandi is starting edit wars and report the other users. Do not tell me this is a personal attack, I am the one being constantly harassed. Yesterday he reverted my edit and threatened me: "If you want to remove it discuss on the talk page first. Or WP:ANI again." link He never discusses in the talk pag but he's always saying that I need to use the talk page. P3DRO (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, who is responsible for what is pointless. Both of you are responsible right now. You are both edit warring, engage in uncivil and battleground behaviour. It doesn't matter who started it. You guys aren't children. It only takes one to stop it and look for other ways to fix it. You two clearly cannot collaborate with each other and it's disruptive to see two editors go after each other like, again, children by edit warring, violating 3RR, engage in uncivil and battleground behaviour, each file EW complaints thinking they are right, and so on. I am repeating at this point. I think you both deserve a block to stop this disruptive editing, rethink your strategies, and focus on other Portuguese-related articles if none of you engage in proper behaviour rather than acting like you own the article. Pinging @Dennis Brown: for his opinion on if a block is necessary. If so, I will probably propose a one-week block as per Qed (sp?). Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑16:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SLBedit: I just saw your bad faith edit above (diff), where you accused an otnher editor for being a sockpuppet. Please do not do so without any evidence, and if you have evidence open an WP:SPI or consult with an administrator. The edit above, I would just consider harrassment. Qed237(talk)17:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When have I ever done that? Anyway, seeing the behaviour of both of you I wont even argue with you more. Nothing good can possibly come out of it. Qed237(talk)17:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@P3DRO: Do not copy signatures from other editors, people might think we signed something we said here in this discussion. It is a bad behaviour to copy signatures. If you quote someone the use italics and cope the quote, without modifying it, and then add the diff immediately after so it is clear it was copied. Qed237(talk)17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Struway2: It was not in the linked discussion and I had no memory of writing that so at the time it was a "false citation". Had he quoted it correctly, with a link to the correct discussion, I would not have said anything, but he had no evidence I ever said it. However, now it is obvious I did, although it has been taken out of context. Qed237(talk)17:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that it wasn't in the linked thread; it was in the one immediately above, which he linked the second time, when he copied the whole section with signatures which made the whole thing a bit confusing. But thank you for withdrawing the accusation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake when linking Qed237's quote. I will not edit anything until this matter is closed. I am losing my time editing and I do not want my work being reverted by SLBedit. Until he stops thinking he owns the pages related to SL Benfica and stops his attitude of wanting to do the last edit I will not contribute. I don't care if he's banned or not but it is imperial that his attitude change. P3DRO (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That style is the standard and is getting far and away the most support at the RfC, so I personally see nothing wrong with his edits. If three or four weeks from now that has drastically changed and someone closes the RfC with an absolute stricture against it, you can go back and revert his changes. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Self-report of this account (GhostTownsMapper) and NorwayHS4 as circumvention socks
At first glance you probably believe I am a hacker or something, since things like this probably rarely happen, though I assure you not.
I only just remembered I had these two accounts just now, because I had stopped editing Wikipedia because I was worrying about if my edits would be reverted if I was found, etc. However, today I did remember these accounts (I knew I had two, but I did not remember the usernames), and decided to admit because eventually they'd be found anyway, and it was wrong of me to sock in the first place.
I would like to issue an apology to everyone I have lied and attacked wrongly, including but not limited to Jéské Couriano:, PhilKnight:, Origamite:, Huon:, and Kinu:. They were simply doing their jobs and quite obviously I made their job harder by socking and disrupting. It's easy to do things online you wouldn't normally do in real life because you feel more anonymous and that your face can't be matched with your actions.
Why I would have decided to vandalize Wikipedia and violate a myriad of policies I honestly do not think I myself will know. At the time I was a normal user who had edited since 2012 and had no blocks or bans, though I did have some issues understanding the notability policies. I was working on a project for school in relation to the book Chasing Lincoln's Killer and that was why I was on the Ford's Theatre page. I was getting annoyed, bored and was having problems with MS Word, so I purposefully began overlinking. At the time, I found it to have been a funny joke, and I ignored at the time that Wikipedia is not a place for page jokes.
And, so then, when people connected the dots, I panicked and tried to cover the whole thing up. No lies worked and in the end I gave up for a while after my talk access was revoked.
Later, I created another account and began editing, I suppose one could say it was some sort of Wiki-withdrawal or something. Of course, later I was found again and blocked.
And I did the same thing again, and each time pretty much panicked over it. I worried if people would find out and dislike me for it or something, and that's why I kept socking. It spiraled out of control, but then I began to panic over if I would never be allowed to return to Wikipedia without socking. I began to stop editing, and eventually, stopped completely.
I am guessing someone will bring up the whole Tym_Avi incident of this account, and it is the whole truth that that was not me. I was at school and the person who wrote that was someone I knew there, who asked for syntax help and such. (Since then, that person has gone to another school.) I did find the article quite dubious but gave the benefit of the doubt, which in the end resulted in an IP block, after which I panicked and that's why I submitted unblock requests instead of just letting them stand and waiting until school ended.
I only hope that eventually I may be able to come back to Wikipedia, but instead by the proper way of submitting an unblock request. Circumventing the block only stressed me out worrying about if I would be discovered.
If anyone has questions about this I will answer them. If anyone needs some sort of proof of identity, well, I don't know if I can entirely give that but my IP address should help back my case a bit.
OK I have a few questions. Sparing everyone from digging around, what is your first (sock master) account? Are you currently blocked or banned? If so for what reason and when were the sanctions applied? Thank you for your honesty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem:(Of all things to skip saying, I skip saying what my original account was... wow) I was User:TZLNCTV, and am currently indeffed for socking and that was done Feb. 12, 2015.
Thank you. I do appreciate the honesty here but this is still a serious breach of the community's rules and trust. I am not going to make any immediate recommendations for the moment. I would like to to think about this maybe overnight and get some input from others before proposing or supporting any additional sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's been a while since any of the accounts you've mentioned have been active. Close enough to the 6 months of WP:Standard offer for my satisfaction, unless you've done any deliberately bad editing since April. Have you? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this seems like a very sincere post from an editor who wants to return and be productive. The initial conduct that lead to the indef was obnoxious, but not particularly destructive. I think that if the user agrees to a restriction of operating only one account (no secondary accounts for any reason), then they should be unblocked. agtx04:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Since Mike V has wandered in and blocked these two accounts, thus ensuring nobody will ever bother to come forward again for fear of the same, let's have a poll to see if we should unblock them:
Support unblock - as they appear sincere in their attempt to reconcile with the Wikipedia community I would be happy to give them a second (umpteenth in a sense due to the multiple sock abuse blocks) chance. I can't really criticize Mike V for their block, though, a message to the editor telling them they're blocked until a community decision is made as to whether they should be allowed back in may have been helpful to them. That is assuming that a consensus to unblock here will be accepted. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While Mike V's block was technically correct and in accordance with policy, a part of me wonders if it was truly necessary. Sure, if GhostTownsMapper suddenly goes on a vandalism spree, block away, but I don't think it's likely. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel much the same, I wouldn't personally have called for a block but understand the procedural reasons for doing so. Ah well, I just hope Ghost sticks around and let's bureaucracy take its slow course for a few days or more as necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Standard Offer for TZLNCTV, the original account. I thought about this overnight and I agree with several of the above posters. Enough time has elapse and there is clear evidence of regret over previous actions and a desire to return as a productive member of the community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock - Give em a chance if he wants to join us and help the project. In a way, he reminds me of me going 10 years back. Look at my very first contributions... I got into vandal fighting simply because I was so amazed that users who weren't administrators could revert and warn users - been doing it ever since. Best case scenario? He becomes a good editor and this only holds him back for a short time. Worst case scenario? The stripes are revealed and we just block again. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)15:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock for either GhostTownsMapper or TZLNCTV. This is exactly the approach I'd like to see blocked users take to regain their editing privileges. Huon (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: Since the original block of TZLNCTV was a {{checkuserblock}}, I'm concerned any lowly admin that wanders by and sees this might unblock based on a consensus to unblock, without realizing that policy apparently requires the OK of a checkuser first. So I suggest a CU be consulted. I assume their role would be to confirm no socking has been going on in the last 5-6 months. I'm just letting you know about the policy, not defending it. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Small trout to Mike V for the blocks, since the person was in dialogue with us and not disrupting anything as far as anyone could tell (blocks are supposed to be preventive). Would have been better to leave one unblocked so discussion could continue here instead of through user talk relay (plus per Ritchie333's comment). Re the longer term block, standard offer looks ok to me, conditional on CU. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 72 hours, talk page disabled. However, the IP appears to be on a cell network in Turkey, which does sound like an excellent setup to jump IPs left right and centre and cause lots of vandalism. Is there any previous record of disruption on this range? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As what this admin said before, it might be possible but it could be optional to notify the Wikimedia Foundation to file a complaint of network abuse with Turkcell. There's no need for this kind of childish behavior by anyone. SportsLair (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing by Wesco482
Since 2014, Wesco482 has been making edits that go against MOS and has received several warnings not to do so, but has continued to ignore them. As far back as July 2014, I've warned the user to not add unsourced claims, which the user continues to do so. On May 2015, Wesco was uploading extra images of an album and singles without a proper rationale and was warned not to do so here, here, and here, and here. But the user continued to upload those images anyway despite receiving a block. Last month, 88marcus told the user to stop using 45worlds.com as a source because it is a website that allows anyone to submit, but has ignored that and I gave the user a reminder to not use that website. Then the user was unnecessarily capitalizing section headings (link), and told to stop after doing so repeatedly. The final straw was Wesco482 re-creating song articles about Gloria Estefan that does not meet WP:NSONGS. The user twice reverted my edit (here and here). On top of that, re-rectead Lejos de Ti with another article with different capitalization (as seen here). On that same revision, you can see that the user uploaded extra images of the single cover, showing that user has learned nothing from the last block. As you can see, the user has shown over and over to be refusing to get the point and it needs to stop. Erick (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indef block: Wesco482 has little promises to keep, and of what Erick is saying all comes to true, then the time is right to give the disruptive editor some more time to think it over before any further damage occurs. SportsLair (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Block. Needs some sort of block to stop his endless disruptive behavior. To get unblocked he needs to demonstrate understanding of what he's doing wrong and agree not to do it anymore. Does he do anything constructive? If not, might as well be an indefinite block (which is just as easy to request unblock as a finite block). Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Contaldo80 in slow-motion edit war on Robert Sarah
@Contaldo80: has been engaging in an edit war for 12 months now in order to protect his preferred version of Robert Sarah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His efforts mainly focus on a section heading describing Sarah's positions on issues of marriage. I have attempted all manner of dispute resolution, including and culminating in a WP:RFC which has not drawn a lot of participation, but Contaldo keeps claiming it's "over" and "settled" while the RFC is still open - so some of his edits involve removing the {{NPOV}} tag I placed on the section.
Contaldo80 is exhibiting ownership symptoms on quite a number of articles. Basically, if I make an edit on one of them, it is a foregone conclusion that he will come back and revert to his preferred version (sooner or later, sometimes it takes up to a week or so, because he is wary of bright-line revert-rules that have tripped up @Roscelese: in the past.)
Contaldo80 discusses, but he always aggressively reverts at the same time he discusses. So therefore it is rather deceptive that he is discussing at all, he is simply doing all things possible to protect his preferred version, and has no intention of compromise or collaboration. Elizium23 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As ArbCom pointed out, neither Contaldo80, myself, nor any of the other editors who have rejected your position both in the article and on the talk page are "the problem" here; one would have assumed that such a long-time editor as yourself would have grasped the idea of consensus by now, but clearly it is still evading you. Your response to the RFC that went against you? "don't pretend that you are establishing a consensus against us in a 14-month edit war just because the RFC went your way." [88]. Black Kite (talk)00:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those diffs. Actually, the only non-IP editor that actually agreed with your change to the section header was Chicbyaccident; the others all made minor changes (i.e. "rights" to "movement") or in the case of BMcLaughlin and Afterwriting, actually changed it away from your defintion. Oh hang on, I'm wrong - you did have two allies - NapoleonX who also insisted on inserting "gay" into the description of one of Sarah's critics, and Cr7777777 who was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry, and, er oh, this. Good company you keep. Black Kite (talk)
FYI, I never engaged in any "sock puppetry" unless you are referring to when I accidentally didn't sign a comment and went back and signed it within a minute of the original submission. That is a false accusation by the gay bullies who administer. Whenever I need to point out how ridiculously biased the Wikipedia editors are on certain controversial issues, I just need to refer them to the article on Cardinal Sarah so they can judge for themselves.Cr7777777 (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually sorry I brought in those diffs, but not for the reason you think. I am sorry because I let this thread go down the rabbit-trail of content dispute, when what is at issue is edit-warring behavior. It doesn't matter if you are on the right or wrong side of consensus, edit-warring is always wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LuckyLag360's response ("I fixed several articles I thought needed editing") is not credible:
in each case the reversions restored unsourced or nonsense text to the articles;
the articles are on unrelated topics that LuckyLag360 has not previously edited; and
their only point in common is that the reversions were of edits made by someone who LuckyLag360 is in dispute with.
Blocks are designed to prevent ongoing disruption. There is nothing in this thread to suggest that the above disruptive editing will not recur as part of this or subsequent disputes involving LuckyLag360.
On the basis of the pointlessly long-winded background above, LuckyLag360 is blocked for two weeks.
Please note this responds to the disruptive editing and not the underlying content dispute. I have no idea if center-libertarianism is real, and suggest that is best resolved at the AfD and the article talkpage.
I first encountered him when he added a section to the libertarianism article based on a website under his personal control, one that is blatantly unreliable and a couple of others that do not say what he cited them for; I won't repeat the user conduct issues I highlighted at this archived AN/I thread.
After the block ran out he again edit-warred at another article.
Yesterday I nominated Center-libertarianism for deletion, an artilcle LuckyLag360 had written and that suffered the same problems as the content I originally encountered in the Libertarianism article. In retaliation LuckyLag360 has started reverting some of my edits [104], partly with obviouslyfalse edit summaries and in one case re-adding nonsense. This isn't just pointy, it's revenge.
It's a kind of harassment he simultaneously accuses me of, without presenting evidence (there is none).
LuckyLag360 has also added mentions of center-libertarianism to various otherarticles, never supporting the addition with a reliable source. Note that in the second set of edits he also changes the "states' rights" description away from what the reliable source says.
I could go on with the list of issues with LuckyLag360's conduct on Wikipedia, but I think this suffices to support my original assertion. LuckyLag360 should be blocked indefinitely. Huon (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is more of the harassment, this is the second time you've come to this notice board. Frankly I could care less what you think, Im here to improve political articles. Thats why I edit political articles. I also edit road articles. Pretty simple stuff. I'm tired of Huon harassing my edits hounding me on every article and trying to delete every article I write. He's the one that should be banned. LuckyLag360 (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPancake: I'll do the best I can but Im not a seasoned wikipedia user so I dont know all the tools or how to use them, But the first example is when he first came to the admin notice board less than a month ago complaining about me and wanting me banned. Which ofcourse did not go anywhere for him. But conveniently when the tide turned and he saw he could not get me banned he focused on actually trying to reach a consensus which I applaud him on. But the problem with that first one was on the libertarianism page in which he completely ignored assuming good faith and immediately came to admin notice board as soon as I challenged his reverts of content I added. He's also tried to intimidate me on my talk page by posting edit warnings when he was the one violating 3RR(not sure how to link specific edit history). After losing the consensus on libertarianism I moved on to editing other articles and avoided Huon. Of course this didnt last as he came to Center-libertarianism page in which he nominated for deletion despite the fact that admins had already vetted the article and the sources where accepted. I responded rather quickly to his nomination for deletion. Instead of actually replying to my rebuttal on the nomination for deletion page he goes here and wants get me banned. It seems every time he doesnt get his way easily he wants to ban me. I have no problem with my edits being question, challenged, reverted, debated, ect. But when people like Huon ignore assuming good faith, constantly stalk pages you edit, revert changes without explanation and nominate pages for deletion out of the blue and than report you when you reply to the nomination for deletion it gets annoying and I consider harassment. I'd also love to see this conspiracy Huon has come up with about some sort of political agenda I have.
As for the abundant accusations I didn't address (was busy at the time) I'll go through these one by one:
1. Agreed, we debated the sources and eventually more wikipedian people sided with his argument and the edit has not been changed since. (How this is a reason for ban is kind of weird)
2. As for the Q&A again I dont have the knowledge of tools or whatever may exist to show such things. But I believe at the time to add information into that specific box it had to be approved. Regardless he removed it and I didnt add it back so why this is a problem is beyond me.
3. I did not agree with that block as I did not violate that rule but it was a 72 hour block so I didnt really care about getting it repealed.
4. Content added was challenged by me, which was added, discussed and resolved in talk page.
5. Its not retaliation at all, I fixed several articles I thought needed editing. If you'd like to challenge the specific edits, please go to the talk page of articles where you disagree and explain why and how I am wrong and reach a consensus.
6. Since when did adding relevant articles to a see also section require sources? never have I seen a page with a see also section have sources attached to them. That would be interesting but its not the reality. As for the other article I self-reverted adding "Center-Libertarianism" to it and for the states rights vs states powers difference. The difference and language is important as the Liberal Republicans where not neo-confederates, its actually well documented they where anti slavery and anti states rights. What they where for where constitutional powers, specifically state powers delegated to the states by state constitutions. For example my state constitution mandates the state not the federal government handle roads, schools and many other public institutions. States rights on the other hand have been well documented to stand for allowing slavery and other racists policies liberal republicans opposed. And beyond the Liberal Republican revolt it self its extremely well documented classical liberals have always opposed slavery even if its just philosophically.
So hopefully I explained my side properly and I just want huon to stay away from me or act like every other admin I've come across on Wikipedia. Usually they assume good faith. Give some sort of notice or warning before action and also discuss issues on talk pages before reverts, and notice boards. Obviously we all make edit errors and sometimes we disagree on certain things and we end up being wrong but Huon takes it to the next level. I'll be the first to admit I have been wrong on many discussions and edits. That doesnt mean I should be banned for life on wikipedia. Thats insanity, atleast I think. LuckyLag360 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyLag360: I've reviewed the above and want to cut to one key point - are you genuinely claiming that you did not go through these recent edits by Huon - 1, 2, 3 and 4 - and revert them solely because they were made by him? in each case your reversions restored unsourced or nonsense text to the articles, and I'm struggling with your suggestion that this was done in good faith.-- Euryalus (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent uploader of copyrighted images. Given a "final warning" on his talk page over a month ago. Has never engaged on his talk page. Not sure what to do here, I don't think there is malicious intent but I also don't know how to get through. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing by formerly blocked ip
118.92.205.124 is once again making disruptive edits to Rainbow's End (theme park), Sylvia Park, Southmall Manurewa, ANZ Bank New Zealand and many others. His habit is to list street addresses and dates of startups. Inexplicably, he sometimes changes the startup date format which he entered on a previous edit to birth year. He is editing the exact same articles, with the exact same edits, that were edited by 27.252.153.1, 27.252.142.124, 27.252.151.194, at least one of which was previously blocked, so he has a history of using multiple ip's. At Onehunga Branch, he persists multiple times in removing the Onehunga Line template, despite being told that Onehunga Branch is part of that line. I had hoped that reverts by User:Ajf773 and myself would not go unnoticed and he would be blocked by an admin, but unfortunately this has not happened and I must now formally request an indefinite block. Akld guy (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried explaining the issues on a talk page, either an article's or the IP's, preferably without threatening blocks at the same time? IPs are people, too, and I'm somewhat concerned if one editor refers to another as a "pest", particularly when this is basically a content dispute. (As an aside, I don't think the date of 1835 you re-introduced is correct, but that should be discussed on the article's talk page.) It's also rather difficult to argue that adding addresses is automatically disruptive when the template offers a parameter for that purpose. For comparison, Disneyland, the British Museum and the White House all give addresses, too. Even if the IP's edits were found to be disruptive, we do not block IPs indefinitely, particularly not dynamic ones. Huon (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the IP's edits are worthwhile, and I have tried to retain those that are. The IP does not respond to advice/warnings on his Talk page, and his usual response to a revert which includes an edit summary explaining his mistake is a revert of the revert. Take a look at the history of Onehunga Branch where you will see that for several months, under one Ip address or another, he has removed the same content (the list of railway stations on the Onehunga Line) despite edit summaries that point out that the Branch is a segment of the Line. I'm sorry but my tolerance, and I think that of User:Ajf773 has run out with this pest. As to the wrong date (1835), presumably for ANZ Bank New Zealand, the IP may have replaced it with another date and I restored it in a revert. This is a problem when this IP makes quick changes in succession, some of them good and some of them bad. The good ones become collateral damage. That's my mistake. But, overall, this IP's edits are disruptive, and User:Ajf773 feels the same. This Ip has cottoned onto a winning formula: make some good edits, but overall be disruptive, making it hard to decide what to do with him. And I see that your response seems to be to shoot the messenger. No more advice to try to interact with this pest please, it hasn't worked. A block of one of the IP's that I listed above didn't work. He was back again soon, making exactly the same edits. Akld guy (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fully back Akld guy's complaint as I have been actively reverting edits from this user who continues to edit under multiple IPs, most of which have been blocked in the past for similar disruptive editing. Approximately 90% of the content has been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia which myself and Akld guy have cited under various points under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and despite continued warnings on Talk sections they continue to disrupt the articles mentioned (as well as several others). Efforts to communicate with this editor have been futile. Until this editor finally gets the message we have no other choice other than to continue serving blocks. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user has been blocked for spamming, but is now spamming their talk page. Can a friendly admin block talk-page access? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing from Hzh: around 170 (almost) consecutive edits in a matter of days
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hzh has made in a few days around 170 (almost) consecutive edits on the article Marco Polo, making de facto any return to the article as it was before impossible. Please note the previous status-quo had been find after very laborious and long compromises. I need the help of an administrator because I find such way of editing very, very disruptive but I could not find any instruction on the way to proceed in the WP Community Portal. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what the complaint is about. It is very easy to restore to its earlier state. Nothing I added is unsourced, in fact I corrected a number of edits that appear to be added not supported by sources, and seem to be entirely the editors' opinion. I think you needed to say more so that I know what it is your are complaining about. If you think there is a problem, I think you should discuss it first before issuing an ANI. Hzh (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, you cannot post 170 consecutive edits without discussing first. This is simply insane. I do not contest all of your edits, but certainly some of them. The thing is that you need to edit at a pace that is consistent with the capability of your fellow editors to discuss. Please return the article to its condition and I will remove the post on the ANI. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Silvio1973, what administrative action are you requesting? I see nothing wrong with Hzh's conduct here—"a string of minor edits rather than a single large one" is an utterly standard method of editing, particularly on high-traffic pages like this where there's a risk of edit conflicts doing it as a single large edit—and we're not going to intervene in a content dispute unless you can provide evidence of any kind of inappropriate behaviour. ‑ Iridescent14:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if posting 170 consecutive edits is normal for you I will adapt. I don't think it is normal, but I will comply. Consider this ANI closed and all you accept my excuses to bother you all. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's not a big problem, just that AN/I is not for this sort of thing. AN/I is for issues which need administrator action. This is something the two of you can work out without admin intervention. I've linked all of Hzh's edits into a single diff, hope it's useful. Good luck and carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Silvio, what? there is no such rule anywhere on Wikipedia and it is not insanity to have 170 consecutive edits from 15th October to 7th November. Second, if you've made no attempt to discuss the edits with the user, get off of AN/I as this is not the place to contest content disputes. ANI is a final resort to behavioural problems, not the very first for content disputes. Take it to the talk page and discuss it with Hzh, any changes that the editor has made that you disagree with can be reverted. 170 edits will take a while to go through admittedly and so I expect it'll take several days for you to get through everything. Here's a compilation of all of Hzh's edits over the course of the last three weeks. It doesn't look like a complete overhaul but there is definitely a lot to go through. Work out the content between yourselves first, if you have problems try WP:DRN. If problems persist then consider AN/I. Till then, get cracking. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already expressed my excuses but dear fellow editors I think you are wrong. The article Marco Polo has been built with consensus reached sometime requesting formal mediation for very minor modifications. Considering the history of the article a grain of salt should be put before posting 170 consecutive edits. This is the best way to move other editors away, indeed it's what I will do. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately even an FA article can be subject to vast revisions in the matter of days. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. What consensus may have existed one day will be meaningless the next - especially the case for current events. I've overhauled more than one article without asking for permission - that's because permission is not required. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive IP socking
This ordeal started when I was making some clean-up edits to Knower (band), because I felt that there was some clutter on the infobox at the top, and in the categories on the bottom. [105][106] However, 47.147.39.254 has been disruptively reverting my cleanup efforts, claiming that I am a "conflict of interest." [107] When I traced the IP address, I have confirmed that this user is likely an IP sock of the indefinitely blocked user Boaxy and/or Phrasia (or one of his meat editors), which were previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts, making personal attacks against other users, and disruptive tendentious editing. I have confirmed that Boaxy was the most-recent sock of Phrasia, and was the one who created the article in question. It is very likely that this user has ownership issues with the article. I warned the user to cease this conduct and abide by the terms of their indefinite block, but they have thus far refused.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Chris[reply]
Report harassment/personal attack
I would like to report @Karst: for personally attacking me in the form of false accusations. I take this accusation as harassment and an attempt to discourage me from editing and/or to put me down. Just because I like editing on electronic dance music-related articles and this user has took this as a reason to report me as a sockpuppet. On the sockpuppet investigation page, the header says something like "Accusing someone without evidence is personal attack" so I would like this user be taken action against for personally attacking me (if justice is enforced on this website). - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
