Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)
Start a new discussion

Stalking complaint

Permalinks to context, Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Template_editor#User:Magioladitis & User_talk:BU_Rob13#ANI notification; User_talk:Magioladitis#Wikibreak commencement. —prepended later by Sladen (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest example here: [1]. Please protect me. Rob has commented in all my BRFA's, my BAG membership and in many more places. Usually, he is the first to comment. I have evvidence that he as been sending emails about me to others. I have evidence that he has been contacting others offwiki about me to others. -- Magioladitis (talk) Note: I corrected my statement after explanations given Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Original statement restored and struck, per retraction. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

...then post that evidence. It simply hasn't happened, and the unsupported accusation is a blatant personal attack. This is only being filed because I said 3 minutes ago that I planned to take this to ANI tonight when I get to a computer. He wanted my name in the section header instead of his. Magioladitis has been wikihounding me blatantly for weeks since he was desysopped. I've tried to have little contact with him, but that hasn't worked. I'll post a comprehensive list of evidence (actual evidence, with diffs and stuff) when I get home tonight. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Rob said for me be removed from BAG member "This has been going on for years, and a bot operator that doesn't comply with the bot policy should obviously not be a BAG member" (06:39, 27 December 2016, emphasis is mine). [2]

Rob comments about me: "The behavior over half a decade is far below what's expected of any editor on the project" (20:04, 19 January 2017, emhasis is mine). [3]

Rob comments in a BRFA 2 minutes after I placed the time stamp: [4].

A list of all of my bot's task in the last month. Rob has commented (usually the first to comment) in the vas majorit of them (pobably in all till Task 50).

I have already warned in the past that this will end in ANI or somehing similar. If I get time I an prove tht people were receiving emails about me.

Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Noting here that I removed the name from the heading. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• I am not that familiar with the context, but I don't think it is necessary stalking if valid points are being raised. Since both editors work with the technical aspects of Wikipedia, overlaps should be expected, and I think it would be wrong to look away if there are pressing concerns. Alex Shih^Talk 01:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I second this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's true in general but something in my communication / interaction with Rob fails. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, Magioladitis' own presentation of evidence here reinforces the impression that there's something wrong with his judgment and needs monitoring: first on his list of complaints above is that BU Rob opposed his reconfirmation as a member of BAG, which you might think was a mean thing for Rob to do until you read the discussion Magioladitis himself links, in which eight out of eight editors commenting shared BU Rob's opinion, citing behavior by Magioladitis which, in the context of a bot operator, is downright frightening. One little passage is especially telling. Someone asked:

Two questions:

1. Why are you running an unapproved bot from your account to make edits like this?
2. Why is this not grounds for yet another block?

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis' response was incredible:

The questions are unrelated to my BAG nomination. BAG checks mainly the technical part of the story. The question asked here is if have the technical skills and related knowledge to be part of BAG. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Magioladitis, it's not just your technical skills that are at issue, it's your judgment (and, to be blunt, your ability to communicate in the English language, from my long observation). And Exhibit A is that you apparently think that, in considering you for membership in the Bot Approvals Group (whose members individually are empowered to approve bot tasks), we should simply ignore the apparent fact that, at the very moment of your application, you were running an unapproved bot. That's shocking.

EEng 02:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

EEng I am not complaining on negative commenting. I am complaining on constant commenting'. Robs has supported some of my bot tasks but he has commented in all of them. I thing that I do not like because I feel exposed to a specific person online. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your long history of going off the reservation is such that someone ought to be watching you. EEng 19:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have evvidence that he as been sending emails about me to others.[5] If I get time I an prove tht people were receiving emails about me.[6] @Magioladitis: It has been over 36 hours since you opened this complaint. You need to provide evidence for this claim, or you need to retract it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

DoRD I retracted. It was explained to me that the communication was via the IRC admin channel. Still offwiki but not via emails. I sincerely apologise. If this has been explained to me earlier I would not have written anything about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not a retraction, it's an after-the-fact refactoring of your original complaint, so I've corrected it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Response and boomerang

I initially wrote up a long thing refuting what Magioladitis wrote about me stalking, but instead, I'll just refer you to "past me". These claims go back months, and I wrote a very detailed explanation of the interactions I had with Magioladitis in the past. You can find that here. As a brief summary: We interact about the normal amount of times for those editing the same area. I've only ever started a single discussion related to Magioladitis, as I intentionally avoid him whenever possible. I've initiated zero interactions with him since the second ArbCom. Every time I've criticized him, the community has agreed with my criticisms. I think that about sums it up. Now onto the evidence that Magioladitis has been continuously harassing me, as promised:

• During the first ArbCom case, he openly and needlessly speculated about my location on-wiki in violation of WP:OUTING multiple times. [7], Special:Permalink/757731590#Canada.
• In April 2017, he started a discussion about one of my bot approvals without even discussing the concern with me, in apparent retaliation for my criticism of an unrelated third-party bot task that was violating the bot policy. (link) The community concluded that I could fix the bug in my task as normal and Magioladitis was warned by a BAG member (Headbomb) that he shouldn't retaliate against me in that manner.
• In May 2017, he started another discussion about the same bug in the same bot task, despite me not running that bot task at all in between the two discussions. (link) The section was speedily closed with a warning not to harass me.
• In June 2017, he started a discussion claiming (falsely) that I gave incorrect advice to a bot operator. (link) Other BAG members have since stated my advice was correct based on the information available in the bug report at the time.
• During the second ArbCom case, two arbitration clerks had to redact large portions of his evidence section because he made unfounded accusations and personal attacks against me, including the "off-wiki coordination"/email accusation he made above. See here and here.

At the risk of trivializing things, up until this point, we have "run-of-the-mill" incivility, abuse of process to harass, etc. After the second ArbCom case, it was ratcheted up quite a bit to wikihounding me everywhere I go.

• In September 2017, he suddenly popped up on my talk page to demand an apology and retraction for a comment I made during the first ArbCom case. I stand by my original comment, which was supported by the findings of facts in the case. See here. This proves Magioladitis was literally going through 9-month-old edits and contributions to find something to hound me about.
• In October 2017, Magioladitis removed a PROD I placed on a file (now deleted, so I can't show the diff); File:Seleccionada3.JPG. This was his first edit to the file namespace since August 2017, when he (ironically) accidentally rolled back one of my edits on another random file, showing he was going through my contribs at that time as well ([8]). This is an editor who so infrequently edits the file namespace that if you try to retrieve his last 100 file namespace edits, the site returns an error. A discussion on his talk page made clear he had no legitimate rationale for removing the PROD [9].

I'm philosophically opposed to interaction bans, especially one-sided ones. At this point, I just want his harassment to stop. I think a site ban is appropriate given the history here. Magioladitis has had many last chances. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It saddens me to be editing this response right now... I can understand how disheartened and perhaps frustrated or angry that Magioladitis is feeling since the ArbCom case that recently closed, but I can't help but be honest here... I feel that these problematic accusations by Magioladitis are only going to continue until action is taken and we (the community) put a stop to it. We've gone through complaints and discussions on different talk pages, numerous ANI discussions, two ArbCom cases - how far do we allow this to go? When is enough enough? Do these continued and repeated discussions involving Magioladitis' behavior show that perhaps we've reached a point where he's stopped becoming net positive for the project? I'm not sure how to feel... it's just truly sad and disappointing... :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Unless there's a serious reason to believe an IBAN would not work, besides any objections anyone personally has to the concept of IBANs, I don't see why we don't try one. Magioladitis and BU Rob13 each claim to want to be left alone. It seems the perfect candidate for an IBAN. So let's do it. If one or the other is the instigator of harassment, then the IBAN will lead us to the culprit far faster than more arbitration, and more empirically than an ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, please. It's clear that Rob's replies cause me stress in all cases. I don't even want to have positive comments in my BRFA's from him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • If Rob13 is "philosophically opposed to interaction bans", both of them work in the small world of Wikipedia bots, Rob13's actions on BRFAs are to validly point out horrific bot-related misbehavior on the part of Magioladitis, and Magioladitis welcomes the removal of Rob13 from BRFAs, that doesn't seem like a very constructive solution to me. It might be possible if we simultaneously ban Magioladitis from anything bot-related, broadly construed, but otherwise no. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • David Eppstein on the bots area we have a cease fire. I am banned from bot policy related discussions and Rob said won't do any BAG action on CHECKWIKI anymore. We have no conflicts there anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Who cares what benefits either of these individuals bring to the Wikipedia bots world? If they can't work together, and the trouble their interactions cause outweighs the benefits of their work in the bots realm, then why should we give a damn about the benefits of their work with bots? I see no reason to put on kid gloves with respect to either. Things do not simply get this bad and stay this bad for so long based on the unilateral misconduct of a single person, the removal of whom would fairly resolve. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Well actually quite a lot of people care about the benefits Rob brings given there has been no downside. They don't care about the benefits Mag can potentially bring because he comes with a history of negatives which have had a huge amount of community involvement even before it got to Arbcom in order to get him to change his ways. Things do get this bad and stay this bad for so long as the result of a single editor if that editor refuses to change their ways. To disregard all the previous dealings with Magioladitis inability to abide by ENWP's requirements on editing behavior with a hand wavy 'well other people are at fault too' is ludicrous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
          • It takes two to tango. Things do get this bad and stay this bad for so long as the result of a single editor if that editor refuses to change their ways. Bullshit. ArbCom or the community would have banned Magioladitis ages ago if this were so simple. Neither ArbCom nor the community is so stupid as you are painting them to be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
            • 'It takes two to tango' being the best you can come up with to smear another editor? 'Where there is smoke there is fire' is another good one. So as much evidence as Mag has presented then got it. Do you have any actual evidence other than clichés that 'well everyone is at fault' despite the overwhelming extended evidence to the contrary? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
              • You kinda skipped the rest of my response. You might want to strike yours and write a new one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                • What? Where you stated I said the community or arbcom were stupid? When I did no such thing? I tend to ignore complete bullshit. The community and Arbcom have wasted far more time on Magioladitis than they are worth in good faith. That does not make them stupid, it makes them extremely tolerant. There is a limit. You on the other hand are implying that tolerance means that there must be other people at fault because they have not decided to outright ban Mag yet. Which is again, ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                  • You can't have it both ways! You indicate below that ArbCom and AN/ANI are extremely effective at topic banning and sitebanning disruptive individuals when it's merited. You indicate above that things could stay this bad for so long purely because of the conduct of a single editor. Magioladitis has been before ArbCom twice and at these boards who knows how many times. Now you say the reason Magioladitis is still around is because of tolerance. But why be tolerant when, as you say, AN/ANI or ArbCom could effectively be rid of the intolerable conduct wrought solely by Magioladitis against innocent bystanders? These claims are not consistent with one another unless you admit that Magioladitis is not solely at fault, or unless you are calling the community stupid. I'll assume good faith on your part, however, and assume you mean to say that Magioladitis is not solely at fault. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                    • You appear to be having trouble reading and comprehending what I wrote. This is the second time you have said I said something that I clearly did not. There will not be a third. To explain further - I said AN/ANI and Arbcom do have a history of cutting editors loose who cause too much disruption. In Magioladitis case they have extended time and again various options in order to keep them around. These are obviously not mutually exclusive positions - the willingness of the community to keep an editor editing is in line with the amount of good work it feels can be extracted from them. The willingness of editors to extend (an overly generous imho) effort to keep Mag editing does not mean it thinks that anyone else is at fault - it merely means Mag has not become disruptive enough yet to be banned. If you actually look at all the past discussions, sanctions, arbcom etc, you will find almost no indication that any other editor has caused any issues regarding Magioladitis other than Mag themselves. You on the other hand seem to think that because they have not been banned so far, someone else must be the problem. This has been a staple of Magioladitis defense for the past few years 'I am not the problem, everyone else is, leave me alone to do what I want to do'. And this has been soundly rejected time and again. You have used ridiculous cliché's like 'it takes two to tango' to suggest sanctioning a productive editor who is currently being harassed by another with a history of bad behaviour. Because an interaction ban *is* a sanction on an editor and requires evidence to justify it. Not 'well it cant just be Mag's fault'. So please in the form of diffs, provide evidence that BU Rob should be sanctioned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                      • Stow the attitude. I'm not providing diffs because I'm not arguing Rob has culpability. I don't agree with your analysis and I'm showing the logical inconsistencies in your argumentation. I'm not misreading what you're saying. I understand full well the draconian outcome you're trying to rationalize. As for me, I would rather work for the good of the community and greater peace in the long term, and the way forward is through a mutual IBAN.
                        Both Rob and Magioladitis have stated they want to be left alone. Let's have them leave each other alone. Preserving the atmosphere of collegiality takes precedence over whatever improvements any of us individually could make to the encyclopedia, especially those improvements that could be made at a later date. At the core of your argument seems to be the spurious claim that we shouldn't make an IBAN mutual because it would be an indignity to Rob. This really isn't a credible concern. We're not punishing, we're preventing. If we were punishing, we would care about things like culpability, and the indignity of punishing the target of one user's bad behavior.
                        In any event, by your own characterization of Magioladitis there shouldn't be much of a delay between the implementation of an IBAN and Magioladitis receiving the indef block or community ban you appear to think is necessary. Honestly, this is where I am a bit confused about your position: Do you not believe Magioladitis would violate the IBAN in short order? If so, then what's there to lose? If not—that is, if Magioladitis complies with the IBAN—then how could you argue the IBAN wouldn't work? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                        • "I'm not providing diffs because I'm not arguing Rob has culpability." Yes you are. You have repeatedly. You have suggested sanctioning another editor based on clichés and zero evidence. You have deliberately twice stated I said something I didn't. So any 'attitude' you receive, like Mag, is entirely of your own doing. Since you decline to provide any evidence another editor deserves sanctioning, I can safely assume there is no evidence that anyone else is at fault. Thanks for confirming it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                          • Um, no. I'm not arguing culpability. I'm suggesting applying a nonpunitive IBAN to two editors who can't get along. Culpability isn't required for a sanction, only that the sanction will cure the underlying behavior. Nor do I have to provide evidence that Rob is disruptive: The disruption caused by their interactions, regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, is evidence enough. You've not provided one substantive reason why a mutual IBAN is improper here, while I've provided numerous arguments why one would work great. All you've done is said it's unfair to punish Rob with an IBAN, but as I've explained, that's flat out wrong. This is not punitive. Moreover, any sanction that Magioladitis receives won't be to provide relief to Rob, but to protect the community. You can go on denying that if you like, of course. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Only in death what ways do you want me to change? The ArbCom case examined the part of my editing and my contact with people. I had no issues with my edits or whatsever after that. I have only one request: The community to find a way that Rob and me do not inteact for a while. Any try to have interaction has gone bad. Maybe it's my fault or I don't know. Rob does not seem to understand that a while I do not want any comments from him in my talk page or in the areas I am trying to contribute. To be honest, I have tried to interact in various occassions but it seems my actions are understood as impollite the same way I understand Rob's actions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
          • You are an editor who has no intention of desisting from editing in the BOT area, asking the community to prevent one of the other experienced editors in the BOT area from interacting with you when you have an extended history of causing issues is ridiculous. Per WP:HOUND given your history, every editor with even a passing interest in the bot area could watch you like a hawk and it would be justified by policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Only in death I already have a ban in the bot related area which I respect so any action here is not related to bots and bot policies. I have not even made an automated edit the last month (and perhaps more). I pursuit to change area and switch back to things I 've been doing before bot work. This includes all types of gnome editing, template standardsation and participating in xFD discussions. I already found a compromise with Rob on some parts. I do not discuss bot policy, he does not get heavily involved in CHECKWIKI project. I think we should and can extend that. I think there is field of communication. There is bad faith on the air but we need to find a way (even if it technical in the beginning) to work it out. Something like "no comments to other's talk page" would suit me. It's not the first time I write this. Rob needs to give me space. There are other admins out there to discuss matters with me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
              • There are other admins out there to discuss matters with me. I have tried and you didn't like me discussing matters with you, to the point where you ignored and refused to answer questions I put to you, then complained that I might have had your talk page on my watchlist. (The background here is that Rob expressed a concern that Magioladitis behaviour might have been stalking, so I offered to ask). I arrived at your talk page, asked a series of questions to try and get to the bottom of the issue, and I'm still waiting for answers concerning your behaviour, but since we're here and talking about your behaviour - I'll ask again, how exactly did you find the edits Rob had made to some old images proposing their deletion if you weren't stalking his edits ? The reality, as I see it now, is that you don't want anybody to discuss anything with you, you want carte blanche to continue your disruptive behaviour, that you've gone rogue and are now a loose cannon on deck. If you intend to avoid a site ban, you need to think fast and explain now what you're going to do to change your behaviour. Nick (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                • Nick I think I replied to all your questions. Check my talk page. The fact that I arrived to this image it was an unlucky coincidence. I stated my comments in the FfD. I offered my email to you for further communication exactly because it was a concern about the Magio-Rob interaction. I am willing to reply to any questions about everything and I never denied an discussion with you at any point. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                • Nick I am willing to take a wikibreak for a month of needed. I still need someone to ensure that Rob won't reply to other in my talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                  • I believe a short break on your part would be useful. It should not be a way to avoid an interaction ban or other sanction however. Nick (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's quite clear that Magioladitis behaviour is now at the boundary of net positive/net negative to the project. The behaviour on-wiki is clearly a net negative for the project but is offset by outreach and technical contributions to the wider Wikimedia project. I support an interaction ban but I'm also not opposed to a straight site ban (of fixed duration - 6 months to 1 year in the first instance). This behaviour cannot be permitted further. Nick (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nick the interaction ban is the first step to take. If this does not work we will have to think of stronger enforcements. But I am confident interaction ban will work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nick I do not have good interctions with Rob. I don't critise the comments themselves but the fact that I get so many comments by him and that he keeps writing on my talk page even to third-parties. Do you think it's normal that he replies to others in my talk page after all this things that have happened? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way I-ban--Notwithstanding Magio's outright false accusations, his terrible on-wiki behaviour and the fact that two ArBCom cases coupled with the general views of the community about his actions have not eased things up, I feel we could give him one very last opputunity before we seek to site-ban him.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• No opinion on I-ban; site ban doesn't seem justified. Supportive of a bot operation / high speed editing ban on the general principle that running bots is outside of our "anyone can edit" principle, so people who do it should be held to high standards. I wrote some similar things in the discussion sections of Mag's two arb cases if anyone cares. It's also perfectly fine to be a bot developer without operating the bots on the live server. Test the bot on an article or two or in some userspace pages, then let someone else do the production runs. That's how most real-life system software works anyway (the programmers and the operators are separate sets of people). 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Given the overlap an I-ban is worthless and implies that Rob actually should be restricted in some way - anything that would restrict him from the good work he does regarding bots should be shot down. I would support anything from a one-way I-ban for Mag, up to and including a complete ban from bot-related editing, or even a site ban at this point. Its clear from the evidence presented he has been stalking Rob's edits in order to harass him and is just the last in a long list of anti-social behavior. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Only in death where is shown that I am stalking his edits? On the contrary Rob has been even commeting my ta page addressing to others: [10]. My talk page is clarly in his watchlist. What is part of my behavior? I feel that I am being stalked and I came directly to the community. --- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Rob has presented evidence in the form of diffs that indicate you have been going through his past edits - and linked to the relevant discussions where your concerns were investigated and found to have no legitimate reason to do so. You on the other hand have presented.... what? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As I state above, if these two cannot get along professionally, and their interactions are so damaging to the community as to outweigh the benefits of their contributions to any particular area of Wikipedia, then who cares what benefits either provides to bots? IBAN them from each other. If one or the other is gaming it to lock the other out of bots, then that person will be sanctioned. The logical leap that an IBAN means that Rob would somehow be restricted from doing "good work" on bots goes too far. Rather, this would let Rob get back to work. I am unconvinced that any overlap here is actually a problem. These are intelligent individuals. If one is obsessed with the other, then that one will violate the IBAN in pretty short order. The implication that this longstanding problem, that has not resulted in a siteban despite two ArbCom cases and untold other drama, can be cured entirely by cutting one person out of the equation is contrary to everything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Disputes don't last this long unless there's at least some toxicity on both sides. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • There is no issue with the two of them getting along professionally. There is an issue with Magioladitis stalking another editor's edits in a vindictive attempt to get revenge for being blocked from playing with his favorite toy. "The implication that this longstanding problem, that has not resulted in a siteban despite two ArbCom cases and untold other drama, can be cured entirely by cutting one person out of the equation is contrary to everything I've ever seen on Wikipedia." Well you clearly have not paid attention, Wikipedia at AN and Arbcom have a long history of cutting disruptive editors out. It stops the disruption extremely quickly. "Disputes don't last this long unless there's at least some toxicity on both sides." Ah the Donald Trump 'both sides' approach. Yeah that argument has no basis in fact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Wow. I think we have a new version of Godwin's Law being born here. I'm weirdly honored. Anyway, to get to the logical inconsistencies in your response, compare Wikipedia at AN and Arbcom have a long history of cutting disruptive editors out. It stops the disruption extremely quickly. with the facts. Neither AN/ANI nor ArbCom have taken the step of "cutting out" any particularly disruptive editor here, nor has there been any cure it would seem. As I said before, if these two editors cannot get along professionally, then require them to stop interacting. If Magioladitis is the panting, drooling, unhinged monster you make them out to be, then the IBAN will be violated in very short order, and we'll move to a proper siteban. Honestly, even for ANI, I am stunned with how quickly the torches and pitchforks came out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure if you are being deliberately dense or you genuinely are unable to read an archive. You do know AN/ANI has handled hundreds of site ban discussions for disruptive editors right? Likewise Arbcom over the years has often site-banned editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
          • As I say above, you can't have it both ways. AN/ANI and ArbCom can't be so effective at handling disruptive editors as you claim, yet impotent to handle what you are painting as a clear-cut, one-sided, obvious case. Come on now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• I support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed. This will resolve the interaction issues, as this is the topic area that the interactions were being made from. The community has clearly, repeatedly, and continuously expressed their frustrations, concerns, and their lack of confidence with Magioladitis' judgment in this topic area, as well as exhausted community resources and time (including numerous talk discussions on many pages, multiple ANI discussions, and two ArbCom cases - and to no avail), and this topic ban will resolve the concerns and put and end to it completely. Most importantly, this topic ban will allow Magioladitis to remain a member of the project (a logical and fair alternative to a full site ban) and give him the chance to contribute positively and be a net positive in other topic areas, while prohibiting him from the topic area that we agree will cause him to become a net negative. This will also place the ball completely in his court; either things will go well and we won't have any more problems, or they wont - and we'll know that the writing is clearly on the wall. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to put on record that, as a Software Engineer myself and as someone who has a passion for computers, code, scripts, and automation (that probably cannot be matched with the level of passion that Magioladitis has for the same thing)........... this was very very hard for me to write. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As I have said in several other venues, technical ability without the ability to work with other people is useless. --Rschen7754 02:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Oshwah I recently had interactions with Rob in an FfD and in a rights request. This is outside the automation area. It turns we iinteract in more areas than expected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment apart from a possible boomerang for Magioladitis for filing a completely frivolous case in his section, I don't see anything actionable here. Magioladitis should possibly be admonished, but unless you're willing to agree to a two-way IBAN I don't see anything else that can be done. It's clear you don't like each other, is it possible for you to not like each other without involving ANI in it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

More evidence

• Rob interacts with me in a template: [11]
• Rob comments to other in my talk page on an AWB issue: [12]
• Evidence of ofwiki communication : Rob expressed a concern that you could perhaps be stalking his edits This did not happen in Nick's page.

This shows that the intearaction is not limited in one area. I am requesting i-ban for months now. -- Magioladitis (talk)

I found that template because you showed up in my watchlist converting many pages to use {{Official website}} instead of a regular hyperlink, with some of those changes resulting in errors due to bad data on Wikidata. Your edits were highly visible because you did a large number of them from a non-bot-flagged account, something editors have been trying to get you not to do for years; that's on you. I quietly reverted the erroneous addition to the documentation because I thought that was the path-of-least-drama; the alternative would be to start an ANI or something to get others to do it. As for "off-wiki communication", WP:INVOLVED states to pass issues to uninvolved admins as necessary, which is what I did; I posted openly in #wikipedia-en-admins on IRC, a channel available to every enwiki admin, asking someone to look at the de-PROD. I suggested no particular action for them to take, just asked for eyes on it. This is what the policy tells me to do. I have never privately communicated with anyone off-wiki about Magioladitis' behavior, such as by email, as Magioladitis has claimed (except to the Arbitration clerks when asking them to look at the personal-attack-riddled evidence section). I did it where any admin could see. I was trying to avoid the drama of ANI, though I'll just take it here in the future, given how severe things have become. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I will refrain from any comments in your talk page. Please, respect me and do the same. I don't want to avoid control of my editing. I only ask you to limit your interactions with me to the minimum. Is that not possible? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem doing that, mostly because I've been doing it already. The totality of interactions with you since the second ArbCom case have been you coming to my talk page to complain about a 9-month-old comment, you de-PRODing a file I PRODed for no apparent reason, and my intentionally brief oppose to your request for template editor (where you responded by personally attacking me). Where in that do you see a lot of unnecessary interaction on my part? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For the first: I believe that you tried to defame my work outside the frame of the ArbCom scope since my work is much more than just the bot editing. I think your comments were negative and unjustified. For the second: I had a reason because I worked in a smiliar way that we do not speedy delete redirects that are too old because of incoming links, etc. The FfD was the right route and as you see I did not pursuit further. The third one was only an echoing of that unfortunate situation. I have good intentions and I really would like that we discuss in a better environment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment what is this supposed to be evidence of? There is no existing IBAN, and this behavior is generally fine without one. Most of these diffs are very stale, and [13] is a very weak argument; I would expect somebody familiar with the case could figure out everything Nick said without detailed off-wiki conversation. @Magioladitis:, apart from the single comment at WP:PERM, do you have any diffs from September or October that are relevant? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

power~enwiki I am not sure if there are more diffs since I have done little editing the past 2 months due to my busy schedule. The thing that annoys me is that after my topic ban to bot policy I decided to switch back to other areas I have been editing for long time (xFds, template standardidation, Wikidata transition, etc.) and I still find Rob in all the forums I try to comment or act. So I do not want to see more drama with this person and I would like to protect myself somehow. Seeing the same person commenting in every BRFA I submitted, replying to people in my talk page it's too much. I do not want to see that happening again; at least for a while. Even his nomination for BAG member had a specific mention to CHEKCWIKI, a project I 've been running for years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've seen enough. The last BRFA he interacted with you on was in August. Your only interaction with BU_Rob13 at XfD appears to be a response to a file he nominated, after you declined a PROD. This obviously isn't stalking or hounding on his part. I think you're acting in bad faith with this complaint, and after two ARBCOM cases I see no reason to give you more time. I Support any sanction up to a site ban of Magioladitis if this farce continues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

power~enwiki The de-prod led to a complain and then there was on more interaction in the rights page but there is a long history of comments in the past. Rob, I think, has agreed to stay away from my talk page and I'll stay away from his. I think we are finding a solution here. Some other misunderstandings have also been discussed in this thread. Don't you think that the situation de-escalates via this disscussion? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is no doubt that BURob has been very active in putting the case against Magioladitis in a number of fora in recent years. I think we may also accept without cavil that Magioladitis sees this as going beyond "just happening to be involved in that area", and that even if wrong, this is not an unreasonable belief.

Therefore it would be wise of BURob to avoid this sort of behaviour, unless we are to believe that no other editor is ready, willing and able to present the other side of the coin to that proposed by Magioladitis. I am pleased to see from the above comments that he is trying to disengage, though I have to admit it comes as a surprise given history of these interactions.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC).

I've voiced my opinion, certainly, but I must insist on noting that I have started a grand total of one discussion about Magioladitis ever. This is compared to Magioladitis starting at least four discussions about me this year alone (two attempts at revoking one of my bot approvals, this discussion, and a discussion falsely claiming I gave false advice about bots). Ever since Magioladitis openly speculated about my location on-wiki, I have not felt particularly safe interacting with him, and so I have taken quite a bit of personal attacks, harassment, etc. from him without comment. It would have been possible/reasonable to take him to ANI after just about any of the incidents I noted above, but I never did, because I don't want to deal with the ensuing interactions. I've tried the "Ignore him and he'll go away" strategy from grade school pretty much since the beginning. No luck so far, although I remain hopeful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The location comment came from my will to meet you in person and de-escalate any misunderstandings that have happenned on-wiki. If you check by that time many people were discussing who and how they go to Wikimania. If you think this was insulting or outing attempt, you can request the hide the edit in question. I apologise if you felt that way but my intention is to descalate any situation that has happened with you and not the opposite. I have met many of the people participating in the project offline and I always try to meet the people who contribute to the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would be very opposed to a two-way interaction ban here. Besides the fact that legitimate criticism != harassment and that BURob13 has done nothing wrong here, it sets the precedent that all someone has to do is cry "harassment!!!!" and the admin is sanctioned at ANI. I would support a site ban for Magioladitis. I just don't think he understands or will listen to criticism. --Rschen7754 02:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Rschen7754 Rob has also made supportive comments in my BRFAs and has replied to others in my talk page. I am not complaining about critisism here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Rob has said that he won't comment in my talk page (in addition to the fact that he has already walked away from CHECKWIKI bot related discussions), I am OK satisfied that we are finding a way to cooperate in a solution here. From my side we can close the thread. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a coincidence that this thread was filed against me 3 minutes after I said I had reached my breaking point and was going to file something when I got home. I also don't think it's a coincidence the person filing this ANI desperately requesting protection against something that wasn't even happening is suddenly happy to pack up and go home as soon as it's clear the community isn't buying the baseless accusations. Personally, I'm very tired of this, and I'd like an actual solution. This very thread is the latest attempt to target me, and so I just don't buy that this will go away if nothing is done. It's about two ArbCom cases and a half dozen ANI threads late for another chance. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I have told you that I am going to seek solution even before the second ArbCom. I am not sure why you want to have so much intearction with me. You have commented in all my BRFAs. What was the reason to even reply to others in my talk page? E.g. [14] and one minute later this: [15]. And these examples were during the cases. Do not you think this causes extra stress to me? Can you please name me another person you had so much interaction as with me? Were you just trying to help? Here you commented in m BRFA 1 minute after I posted. Here: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] (and in many other places) you were the first to comment and all comments were within less than an hour. Here within 2 minutes: [23]. Sometimes you comment to me that fast you had to reconsider: [24]. Some things I do may seem to be outdated (like my comments about trying to defame me etc) but this is because of my workload. I am trying to find a way to cooperate with you but for reason it fails. I do not try to limit your actions as admin and I would like to find a solution that you keep commenting when necessary but we do not interact that much. Sometimes with your comments you seem to want me out of the project. I have told you already that your actions, whether you wanted it or not, led others outside the project. We would not be doing this. Doing your admins tasks is not a reason to comment that much in the places I comment and participate. Wikipedia has many admins to control. I do not try to defame your work but sometimes you seem to act too much when it comes to me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Those diffs from the BRFAs come less than week after all of Magioladitis' bot approvals were revoked for cause. He chose to file 25 BRFAs within 48 hours, which was extremely noticeable, since it caused the WP:BRFA page to basically break. Since the issues with the past bot approvals that led to revocation were mostly caused by lack of oversight, yes, I went through as many as I had time to check and evaluated them. I supported many and opposed a few or asked for more details. I think I commented on about half of the 25, which is consistent with the number of BRFAs I comment on generally – I am, after all, a BAG member. That's what the community wanted to happen when the bot approvals were revoked. The only reason there's so many diffs is because he spammed the bot approval process. This was way back in February, for the record, not recent at all. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This may get me an SPI but I agree with Magioladitis, in part. You've stressed him out a lot, and two of you used this API to argue with each other (ahem, Only in death and Mendaliv, that's not what we do on the Administrators Noticeboard.). I hate to be the voice of doom, but nobody else has commented for hours now. We've had a result already.This API is dead, let's close it. Sorry if this tone offends anybody, it's not intentional. TomBarker23 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it "offends anybody", but I do have to confess that I don't have much idea what you're talking about here. -- Begoon 11:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This is perhaps the harshest criticism of ANI that I've ever seen; if we don't implement a sanction without thinking within hours, the whole thread is dead? Harsh (but possibly accurate). In any event, multiple editors have called for a site ban. At this point, if nothing is done, I'll probably kick it to ArbCom as a dispute the community is unable to solve. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to go back to ArbCom honestly. I'm very uncomfortable with the torches-and-pitchforks attitude that has dominated this discussion, as well as the "It's 100% Magioladitis" attitude, which strikes me as hopelessly simplistic. We should seek a nuanced outcome, and the Committee at least provides a structure in which nuance can exist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The diffs in Magioladitis's post of 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) are all pretty stale. The most recent one is from July 10, and most of the remainder are from February 2017. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa Yes. In my first attempts to do something else after 2 months of rarely editing I had two bad interactions after months of a lot of interctions with Rob. That's why I came here. If I want to edit I just need less stress from Rob. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Outcome

Editors have supported various outcomes above. Can we come to some consensus to avoid having to return to ArbCom for Magioladitis 3? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging all editors who previously commented on this section, as they likely would be interested in commenting below (except those who already commented below). @SlimVirgin, Alex Shih, Oshwah, EEng, DoRD, David Eppstein, Only in death, Nick, Godric on Leave, Rschen7754, Power~enwiki, TomBarker23, Begoon, and Diannaa: ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any outcome here. This case belongs at ArbCom. All involved deserve a nuanced decision and a careful look at the facts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think a couple of trout would do better. Rob knows that he need not jump in on anything Magioladitis proposes, and that it will cause drama and stress. Magioladitis knows he should not "rise to the bait" as this exacerbates the situation.

Magioladitis is quite responsive to other editors, in the present case he followed Sladen's advice, and the issue is resolved.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

• I think Rob's evidence of hounding is strong enough that, at a bare minimum, Magioladitis needs to be admonished not to do that. I would prefer stronger outcomes, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (a) This situation is indeed one-sided; BU Rob has done nothing wrong. (b) Something has to happen here to make Magioladitis realize that he's again wasted a hell of a lot of people's time. Since (other than that) he hasn't done anything recently to piss me off personally, for the moment I'm open to anything from trout on up, and I'd like to hear others' opinions. EEng 22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, despite his claim that he does not "initiate" anything, he has initiated this sub-section and initiated a mass ping. He also initiated objections to Magioladitis not being granted TE privileges. That's within the last couple of days. He has also initiated discussions on Magioladitis's BRFAs.

Really BU Rob behaves pretty well elsewhere, but I do find his behaviour WRT Magioladitis lacking.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Of course he's initiated this subsection. Something needs to be done about Magioladitis' nonsense. EEng 02:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

And his initiation of this subsection was more editorial than contributory - notice he hasn't put forward a proposal here, just tried to make one place for summations rather than having it interspersed with the discussion. He didn't say, "Ok, how are we going to get Magioladitis punished today?", he asked to see if the community could find a resolution here before kicking to ArbCom. PGWG (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• A few suggestions for Magioladitis. (1) Don't pop in on Rob's talk page and demand an apology in September for a remark he made in January. That's ancient history in Internet years. Likewise, when making your case here at ANI, don't pull up stuff from months ago to demonstrate your point. Time to start fresh and let the auld stuff go. Rob certainly seems to be trying to do that. (2) Don't request any added permissions or such for quite a while. You were only recently de-sysopped. (3) Find something fresh to do that is useful and technical yet outside your previous work. Suggestions: formatting citations such as at Category:Wikipedia references cleanup; working on Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request; and the like. Perhaps I'm naive :). Also, see Wikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment my preferred outcome would be for a voluntary two-way IBAN. And, to suggest a new area, perhaps one of you could try to improve the Government article. Don't both volunteer at once. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: (edit conflict) I agree with User:EEng. There's nothing wrong on Rob's part. For Magioladitis, comments like this (and many others) really confirms they are not hearing anything that's being said. I find User:Diannaa's suggestions very helpful, and I would propose to format these suggestions into formal editing restriction. The idea is to get the user to contribute productively without continuously wasting the time of everybody here in English Wikipedia. Alex Shih^Talk 03:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• I also agree with EEng, thus:

• I strongly oppose any sanction on BU Rob, who has done nothing wrong;
• I support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed for Magioladitis, as suggested by Oshwah, above;
• And a warning for Magioladitis: One can be competent as a bot engineer, and incompetent at Wikipedia, and it is increasingly apparent -- to me at least -- that you may well be the latter. Thus, if a discussion like this comes up again, the only sanction I will be strongly supporting is an indef site ban for you. You have clearly crossed the threshold between net positive and net negative, and only your previous contributions prevents me from supporting that sanction right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I still support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed for Magioladitis and for the exact reasons I explained above. Having reviewed this ANI discussion in its entirety, as well as the discussions and pages that started this ANI discussion - I find that BU Rob13 has not violated any behavioral policies or guidelines with his interactions or discussions with Magioladitis. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah did you get under consideration and the older diffs from February I added? Rob said that one of the reasons h was doing is that he is BAG member dut he was confirmed as BAG member in July i.e. 4 months later. Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding says that "where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I have indicated many places where Rob has interacted with me. For example how does this make any sense? We had multiple interactionsot limited to automation. a) Template documentation b) Policy page c) Multiple interactions in BRFA d) User talk pages e) Rights request f) xFD. And probably other which I forget. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur with EEng, Alex, Oshwah, BMK etc. I still favour a complete automation ban per Oshwah as a minimum and a strong admonishment to stay away from BU Rob. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Kick to ArbCom - I largely agree with EEng here and on the face of it I support a time-limited site ban for Magioladitis for what appears to be a long-term and ongoing campaign of harassment, false accusations and presumptions of bad faith, and no sanctions for BU Rob13 who is clearly being harassed and nonetheless has tried to minimize the situation and avoid harm to the project. However, Mag apparently genuinely feels that he's the one being harassed, although to be as civil as I can, he's stunningly failed to make that case. There's a lot of evidence to consider here, plus allegedly offline evidence, and this is just the sort of situation that Arbcom is set up to examine and resolve. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  Is there a record on how quickly one has gone from receiving a significant sanction from ArbCom, to appearing in front of ArbCom again? PGWG (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

PGWG Smooth. I also tried to joke today but you know this situation has caused a lot of stress so please be more carfull with these comments. I am trying to find a compromise where I will cooperate with people. I am not perfect but a) Not seeing any of my contribution appreciated hurts (I am referring to older Rob's messages) b) Seeing that someone follows everything I do because he thinks this way implements some "community demands" is not very nice. You know a small talk would help and this is what I am trying. Some people here deny to talk to me and just pose threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs)

Magioladitis None of the concerns being raised here are different from concerns raised multiple times in the past, it's just a new set of diff's. Why are you only now trying to find that compromise? This is an honest question, not intended as a slight in any way. I don't think that anyone does not appreciate some of your contributions, I believe I've seen Rob in the past support and complement aspects of your bot work. But the balance of the conversation at hand has occurred in the past (just in smaller venues or with less participants disagreeing with your behaviour), so what is the difference between then and now? As far as my comment, while I do not feel it was out of line I apologise if it caused you additional distress. PGWG (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

PGWG Because after the ArbCom I am trying to make a clean start by moving to areas that have not to do with bots etc. I acted a bit pre-emptive here because I would like to be sure that thy are no hard feelings around and my work from now on won't be judged based on the previous situations. I already have written somewhere that people, including myself, tend to be more impolite when typing an sometimes written text can be read in multiple ways. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that a case request could be handled by motion considering how recent the last case was. --Rschen7754 18:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm very confused as to what Magioalditis is trying to achieve here. I can understand they are well-intentioned but what I also observe is a total failure to get the point. The entire thread has been a trainwreck, with irrelevant issues getting dragged in and out for no reasons at all. I can understand Rob's frustration here, considering they were not intending to send the WP:HOUNDING message, the point being, they too are well-intentioned here. I believe any kind of sanction on Magioalditis will not hold as of now (except a site ban) due to the lack of competence, and the underlying fact is they are at the end of their rope, so either you hang on to the bit you have or don't. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty clear that he was trying to get a break from the scenario where every time he made a proposal, there was BURob opposing it. Having walked a mile in those shoes, I can sympathise. Let us hope, as BURob says, that it is not intentional, but while he states that he is trying to avoid Magioladitis he was I believe the first to comment on his request for TE rights. He also was instrumental in getting Magioladitis removed from BAG IIRC, where BURob effectively took his seat. He also continued to post, again I believe mainly negatively, on Magioladitis' BRFAs, despite saying that he was recusing as a BAG member, and claimed the remarks were in a "non-hatted" capacity.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC).

Incorrect on all counts. I was the second-to-last to comment on his TE rights, as I only noticed it once another editor also requested TE rights and I saw it on my watchlist. [25] I wrote a simple two sentence oppose to Magioladitis' reconfirmation and was one of the last editors to comment, as opposed to most other editors writing at least a paragraph in opposition. [26] I've repeatedly supported Magioladitis' BRFAs when they've demonstrated consensus and followed the bot policy, as demonstrated by Sladen's diffs below. In the future, please verify your claims and accusations before making them, Rich Farmbrough, as required by WP:NPA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Just for funsies here are some some figures that show the some of Rob's involvement with Magioladitis (not all of it negative of course). I think people will understand where Magioladitis is coming from better if they take this into account:

Page	Number of edits
User talk:Magioladitis	43
User talk:Yobot	5
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2	1
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Evidence	30
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Workshop	109
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Evidence	12
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop	119
Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Magioladitis 2	1
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 27	2
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 28	3
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 29	2
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 30	2
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 31	2
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 32	1
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 33	4
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34	3
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 35	2
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 36	2
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 37	1
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 38	3
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 39	1
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 40	2
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 41	2
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 42	5
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 43	4
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 44	1
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 45	6
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 46	1
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 47	8
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 48	17
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 49	7
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 50	4
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 51	7
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 52	7
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54	3
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55	2
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 57	1
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 58	2
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor	2
Total	429

429 edits directed at a single user isn't even remotely funny. When I started editing Wikipedia this would have put you halfway to the most active Wikipedians list on its own. And this doesn't include comments on pages such as AN/I, Arbcom requests for cases, Bots noticeboard, BAG noticeboard etc..

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC).

260 of those edits are from a single Arbcom case in which BU Rob was one of the named parties, so it's entirely unsurprising that he'd be commenting repeatedly there. Discount those, and you have a picture of someone who's made 48 talkpage comments and a few comments on BRFAs. You can prove almost anything by running an interaction analysis on two editors who are both active in the same area; using the same methodology, with over thirty thousand matches I can make a far more convincing case that Magioladitis is stalking me. (Note, before someone complains, that I'm not making this allegation; it's just intended to illustrate what a blunt-force approach this is.) ‑ Iridescent 21:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I could have used a blunt force approach, instead I narrowed the cut to items where indisputably BU ROb is addressing Magioladitis. IF you are running the tool, look also at the min time between edits. With you and Magioladitis that is 6 hours, and rapidly rises. With BU Rob in the above (and many other places) it's seconds to minutes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC).

(For the record). Clicking and reading the last four BAG links provided by Rich (Yobot 54‒58) gives a date range of five months (25 March 2017‒20 August 2017):

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54 "As one of the harshest critics of Magioladitis, I have to say, I think he's being treated extremely unfairly here. …"" (25 March 2017)
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55 "… I support the use of general fixes in this task provided "Skip if genfixes only" is checked and the edit summary indicates general fixes may be applied. I see no reason to deny the use of general fixes running alongside a main task. …" (24 July 2017)
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 57 "… I would be very supportive of running this task from the Yobot account manually to both solve the issue of false positives and prevent watchlist spam. This is an obviously beneficial fix." (6 August 2017)
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 58 "… I strongly support this task. …" (20 August 2017)

Four apparently positive comments (speaking in support of a proposed Yobot tasks), across five months.

—Sladen (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of my edits on the last case's workshop were directed at Beetstra, not Magioladitis. I tend to swing back and copyedit my own comments, so edit counts are (as always) less than the full story in terms of total interactions. In any event, you've shown that I was active in the two ArbCom cases and that I'm active at BRFAs – both things I am not contesting in any way, and both things that are in no way indicative of hounding. If you look at all the other BRFAs from the same time periods, you'll find I was quite active there as well. The only difference between other bot operators and Magioladitis is that the latter filed 25 requests in 48 hours, resulting in more edits spent reviewing them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13. …Q.E.D.. —Sladen (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

So there's certainly a history. I agree with the above that numbers alone aren't enough, but this absolutely destroys any arguments that Magioladitis is just roving around attacking anybody. It strikes me that this pretty well supports a conclusion that this is just BAG drama that boiled over because one editor might have been less resilient than the other. This is why I've so firmly opposed ANI action on this: It's clear that this case is far more nuanced than a classic knee-jerk ANI action is capable of appropriately addressing. While I'm typically in favor of people who behave calmly and professionally than those who do not, the attitude I'm seeing among Magioladitis's most vociferous detractors in this thread has more or less balanced the scales in my eyes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Propose indef ban for Magioladitis

The incompetence shown again, and again, and again, is just staggering. Looking at his edits today, they make a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Opt-in "Edit source" for new accounts? based on utter bollocks arguments, and continue in the same vein with more nonsense when this is pointed out; and they are "alphabetising" external links to Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest and Twitter, with the caveat that they don't even know the alphabet apparently: like here (twice) and here, and here. And here, apparently. here they go from the correct alphabetic order to their own idea of it.

Either they are incompetent, or they are running some badly programmed automation on their account which consistently makes the same error (which would also make them incompetent, but at a different level).

In any case, after the above discussion, seeing how they cause problems and show incompetence at nearly everything they do here, I think it is time to just say "enough is enough" and not bother with further topic bans, restrictions, ... and just end this here and now. Fram (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram I was mainly moving twitter at the bottom. Seriously now. Why are you so aggresive? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

[27] this is not just moving Twitter to the bottom, it switches Facebook and Instagram as well. This one doesn't even have Twitter in it. You simply can't be trusted to edit or comment correctly, and this has only become worse over the years it seems. Fram (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram OK it was a mistake while moving bullets around and having tabs open to update Wikidata at the same time. No need to scretch this that much! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: I've not seen anything in this proposal that actually merits a siteban. Having bad ideas, which is all I can really gather from this proposal, is not and has never been a bannable offense. Even if we factor in some of Magioladitis's more confusing behavior, it's evident from the above discussion that there's something more going on here that merits a more nuanced approach. That is, this case should go back to ArbCom. This is simply not a dispute suitable for resolving with a community ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It may well end up at ArbCom, but I see very few people apart from you notice anyhing "more" going on here apart from problems with Magioladitis' editing. Fram (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)As I said above, were this so simple as there being a clear good guy and clear bad guy, ArbCom or the community would have easily removed the bad guy ages ago. I think there's an emergent toxic behavioral dynamic that needs to be addressed. I don't see the point in shrieking about another editor's incompetence over a handful of diffs. Particularly when it's obvious he or she just used the wrong edit summary when updating external links to rely on Wikidata rather than manual entries. I think that's quite a helpful set of edits you list above. Big deal if the edit summary was wrong. That's not bannable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Seems like circular reasoning: because ANI isn't able to solve this, I oppose ANI solving this. Let's not get into the Wikidata vs. enwiki thing though, we had those issues recently with Magioladitis changing the official website to pull the data from Wikidata, even when the value here was correct and the value at Wikidata was wrong. That aspect of these edits is of debatable value: the actual problem is what I highlighted. In itself, it is a minor issue (though rapidly spreading across a lot of pages, suggesting some script-assisted blunder), but as a symptom of everything that is wrong with the editing o Magioladitis, together with the above discussion and the proposal I linked to, it all indicates an editor who can't be trusted in their regular edits, and who is a waste of time in discussions. Fram (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Actually, I'd rather not see ANI pull off another pitchforks-and-torches answer to a "problem". And let's not skip over Magioladitis good deeds in order to reach a conclusion of irredeemability. If there's something wrong at Wikidata, you're welcome to fix it. And if Magioladitis is doing something wrong at Wikidata, you're welcome to propose some kind of resolution over there. I see nothing wrong with moving official site link information over to Wikidata so it's synced across languages. We did this with interwiki links ages ago. If you have a problem with doing it differently you're welcome to start a discussion to forbid the use of Wikidata on English Wikipedia.
          I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Magioladitis is doing something with a script. I think it's far more likely that Magioladitis is just copying and pasting the templates from article to article, or from an open Notepad window or some such. I'm not sure if you've done much scripting, but it'd be way easier to just remove everything after the pipe on a line than to remove all the EL templates and replace them with a block of EL templates in a different order. You'd just use a regex and be done with it. So, come on already. All this looks like is you seeing the wrong edit summary and assuming the worst. You were wrong. Admit it and move on. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
          • I have made no comments on what Magioladitis does or has done on Wikidata, I don't care, and I have no plans to make any resolution (or any edit at all) over there. Please explain to me where I was wrong in my opening statement? Did they try to alphabetize? Yes. Did they make a total mess of it? Yes. Whether it was script-assisted or totally by hand is not really relevant, the end result is what counts. Fram (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
            • You were wrong in that you said Magioladitis was trying to alphabetize. Magioladitis was switching the EL templates to Wikidata and used the wrong edit summary. It's very likely Magioladitis's browser autofilled the edit summary. Big deal. How is this bannable? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
              • In a series of edits labeled "alphabetize" he switched the order of the templates, and still you conclude that I was wrong believing that he tried to alphabetize them? I start to understand the exasperation felt above with your debating tactics. Fram (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
                • I've actually had a browser autofill the wrong edit summary before. It happens fairly regularly that I have to correct it, and a couple times I've hit "enter" before I caught it. I also see lots and lots of editors using incorrect edit summaries by mistake, I believe because of some builtin gadget that suggests edit summaries. Let's compare that with what you're suggesting: An English speaker who doesn't know the order of letters in the English alphabet. Even if you're right, it's not a bannable offense. This proposal is completely off-base. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
                  • Bye! Fram (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram you mainly oppose my proposal(s). This is not a reason for anything. I can't impose VE to anyone. I made a proposal in the form of question. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No: I oppose your false claims against BURob, I oppose your problematic editing, I oppose the false claims in your proposal and the ludicrous (and in one case highly unethical) followup statements you made there, and seeing that the problems with you stretch back for years and only increase in frequency, I see no reason to let you continue editing any longer. Fram (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram convience me that my claims are false. You stated the percentage of VE edits this morning. There is no comparison data given. I wrote an idea in a place people are supposed to post ideas based on my experience with editors with no epxerience writing. You have many options: you can oppose, say "not for now", etc. I wrote an idea in the Villapge Pump that does not meet your ideas. This is not a reason for drama. We have different expriences and opinions of how people would like to use various tools in Wikipedia (Wikidata, VE, bots, etc). Is this a reason for that? I tried to fix some links and improve templates. If I was wrong just contact me and I'll try harder. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No need to ping me each time, I'm following this discussion. Let's see: you make a claim about VE becoming more and more popular, I show that VE isn't popular even after 5 times, and I am the one having to show you that it was even less popular one, two, three years ago? Ever heard of WP:BURDEN? I made an effort to substantiate my comments with actual figures, while you have done absolutely nothing at all to support any of your statements. You made factual claims to support your idea; you are the one that needs to add evidence for your claims or withdraw them. Instead, you add more nonsense and then ask me to provide more evidence for my numbers? You are simply trolling. Fram (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said: The popularity it's based in my experience discussing with people who told me that VE is now a good tool in comparison to some years ago. I have no strong evidence but you don't see to have neither. In the VisualEditor pages it writes "Presentation from Wikimania 2013: VisualEditor - The present and future of editing our wikis". It was clearly presented as Wikipedia's future. Still, I hear your concerns but this could be done in a calm way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

So you base your claims on anecdotical hearsay and on a promo Wikimania presentation from 2013? The WMF has presented LiquidThreads, Flow, ... countless things as "the future of Wikipedia", relying on that (certainly years later) is worrisome. And in any case, if something is, 5 years after being rolled out and four years after being called the future of Wikipedia, is only being used for less than 5% of the edits, then yes, I see that as strong evidence that the "more and more popular" claim is false. Fram (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

For 3 years, VE was incredibly slow and buggy. I think ow it's better. Fram, I made a proposal in the form of question and you know that I am one of wikicode editors and I have used VE only for test reasons. My proposal was honest. I think I understand what user friendly enviroment means and I don't think wikicode is user friendly. Still, I did not even started an RfC. I asked the community their opinion. You can concur my claims on VE's popularity. I would be more than happy to see evidence. Even for academic purposes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What you did was "Should we do this?" (which is a question) "Because of this, this, and this" (which aren't questions but arguments, statements of fact). You are not here because of your proposal, your question, but because you presented some rumors and wishful thinking as fact, and when asked to back these upwith evidence you just started inventing new reasons to support your proposal (and because loads and loads of other things in your editing history, the edits under discussion are just the straws that broke the camel's back). If I asked "should we ban Magioladitis" and then gave as argument "Because he is a reptilian alien" (you may insert a more realistic but baseless PA here, I took a ridiculous one to avoid being seen as calling you anything), no one would accept the defense "but I was just asking a question", and rightly so. You have been banned from discussing e.g. cosmetic edits because your honest proposals were disruptive; the intention of such a ban is not that you start making similar honest proposals on other subjects elsewhere. Your bot and automated editing have been severely restricted; the intention of these restrictions is not that you start making manual series of repetitive but incorrect edits either. Since it has become obvious (from these examples, but also e;g. from the section you started here) that the restrictions you have had so far only move the problems around but don't actually solve them, it is time to bring this to its inevitable conclusion, and ban you. Fram (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram, I used argumets given to me by people and by WMF's presentations. You may disagree with them (you called them "promo") but I support most of the changes propsoed by Mediawiki developers because I trust that they know to build a user friendly enviroment. The funny thing is that instead of holding thiss discussion in the Village Pump we are holding it her under the threat of ban that causes extra stress and drama. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep on digging! Fram (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh what a bunch of garbage. The exact point of an editing restriction is that you expect the editor to do something that isn't covered by the editing restriction. You were dead wrong about the Wikidata edits, and you're dead wrong about this proposal. So what if it's a bad idea? Then say it's a bad idea and then ignore it. This is what I'm talking about elsewhere in this thread about the torches and pitchforks approach. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"The exact point of an editing restriction is that you expect the editor to do something unproblematic that isn't covered by the editing restriction." There, I've corrected your claim, you forgot a word. Oh, speaking of "dead wrong", I didn't say anything about Wikidata edits, like I already told you above. Fram (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Holster the attitude. You talked about Magioladitis's edits regarding Wikidata repeatedly above. That you framed those edits as "alphabetizing" based on Magioladitis erroneously using the wrong edit summary doesn't change that. As for the purpose of editing restrictions, I think you're putting the cart before the horse: A proposal you don't agree with and a few mistaken edit summaries isn't so egregious as to violate any standing editing restrictions. I'm not even sure if what you're proposing is problematic versus simply incorrect. I ask you again, so what? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have not discussed any edits "regarding Wikidata". You invented the "but despite saying alphabetisizing in the edit summary and at the same time changing the order, these edits were not about alphabetisizing and your comment has to be about Wikidata" reasoning. ANd you are trying to have your cake and eat it, it seems: "A proposal you don't agree with and a few mistaken edit summaries isn't so egregious as to violate any standing editing restrictions." No kidding? It's not a complaint about "a proposal I don't agree with" but again, it's easier to frame it like that to make your point of course; but more importantly, I don't claim he is violating his existing editing restrictions, but that if he gets edit restricted, he finds another area to cause trouble in, as can be seen with these edits but also with the section above about BURob. So your reply simply doesn't make sense, just like many of your reasonings on this page so far. We can't solve this on ANI, because we can't solve this on ANI (see your initial oppose here), and because we can't solve it on ANI, there isn't a problem (or at most "it takes two to tango"); and now there can't be a problem with edits outside his editing restrictions, because they don't violate his editing restrictions? It seems to me that whatever arguments are given here, you fill twist logic into some unrecognisable shape to claim that the arguments don't apply because they don't apply, and if they did apply they would have been applied before. I'm done playing that game with you. Fram (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have not discussed any edits "regarding Wikidata". False. It's not a complaint about "a proposal I don't agree with" False: Your complaint centers, quite clearly, on the fact that Magioladitis made a proposal, and it's pretty clear you don't agree with it. I don't claim he is violating his existing editing restrictions Half-true: You heavily insinuate that Magioladitis's conduct violates the editing restrictions in spirit, in a clear attempt to soften your proposal by framing Magioladitis as some kind of hardened troll. We can't solve this on ANI, because we can't solve this on ANI I'm not sure where you came up with that, honestly: We shouldn't handle this at ANI because it's a problem not suited for ANI, and the outcome would not resolve the cause. now there can't be a problem with edits outside his editing restrictions, because they don't violate his editing restrictions? See earlier: You mention the editing restrictions in a way to unfairly and improperly demonize the conduct you seek to be the final straw in this thread: Some edits related to Wikidata and a proposal you don't like. I'm done playing that game with you. As I said above, holster the attitude. You read way too far into the edit summaries on a few edits and somehow blew it up into a reason for a siteban. You being wrong isn't a reason to siteban someone else. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Talk about "utter bollocks arguments"! Joefromrandb (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• I can't believe I'm typing this, but Magioladitis is going to be banned, and it's essentially per WP:CIR. They're just moving from one area to another, causing increasing amounts of damage and disruption. I endorse the suggestion of a site ban. I wouldn't want it to be permanent, but Magioladitis ideas and editing patterns are so out of sync with the rest of the community, their edits of such poor quality, so hurried and disruptive and spread far beyond the areas where he was topic banned from, I don't see what the other options are, unless we could somehow topic ban him from discussing technical aspects of the project, making ludicrous proposals, making semi-automatic (hurried, rushed and atrociously executed) cosmetic edits and, of course, the imposition of the necessary one way I-BAN to prevent him from stalking Rob. It's basically a "we'll not ban you if you only write new content" topic ban. The lack of self-awareness and the terrible judgement in all of this that is staggering, and is the core of this problem. When he was trying to explain away his stalking of Rob, he actually posted this I think it's normal for a person that wants to re-apply for admin to resume working in that area. now he's been through two Arbitration cases as the named party, forcibly de-sysopped, voted off the BAG, subject to community imposed restrictions, has a talk page archive which is complaint after complaint, and yet still thinks (a) he has done nothing wrong and (b) as an extension to that, because he's done nothing wrong, that he's going to pass RfA soon. I'm speechless and shocked at all of this. Nick (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I would point out that the edits Fram complains about above aren't cosmetic, or at least weren't intentionally cosmetic: They were to change pages to use Wikidata for URLs instead of manually-entered data. That Magioladitis's attitude is less than ideal and unrealistic, I can't deny. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I recognise my mistakes thhat;s way I am moving away from things I 've been doing the last years to things I'v been doing before that. In my last comment I did not wirte that I'll run for RfA soon. I have discussed with people about it. Regaining trust needs time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So, to reinforce my claim of incompetence, you just posted a link to a copyright violating Youtube clip to my talk page[28]? Keep on digging... Fram (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support WP:CIR comes to mind (primarily behavioral competence, not technical), as does WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON. One would think all of the community discussions and ArbCom cases would have given him at least some pause in his behaviour or attitude... in the interests of assuming good faith I'm going to assume he isn't deliberately acting in as incendiary a manner as possible... which brings it right into competence territory. I'm not convinced that any topic ban will be effective in the long term, as the attitude and issues seem to move from area to area. 1-way IBANs are destined to fail (in my opinion), and Rob has done absolutely nothing wrong that would justify a 2-way IBAN placed on him. PGWG (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You reasoning that a two-way IBAN requires that both parties be culpable is mistaken. It merely requires that it be a means of resolving a personality dispute. One-way IBANs, you are right, are destined to fail. And honestly, both Rob and Magioladitis have said they want nothing to do with one another, and that they will leave each other alone if left alone themselves. In other words, they've both effectively consented to an IBAN. In many ways, this renders this discussion moot. We should give this agreement time to take effect and see how it works. And, as I've shown in this thread, Magioladitis's Wikidata-related edits and VE-related proposal do not merit a siteban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Fram has some decent arguments to make about Wikidata. This is not the place, nor is attacking a fellow editor the way, to make them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC).
  
  • Strawman much? Mendaliv is the one who started about Wikidata, and is the one who keeps bringing it up. The ban of Magioladitis is for years of problematic editing, spilling over into more and more topics, like his proposal about Visual Editor. Feel free to oppose this ban proposal, but please do so with something relevant. Fram (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Dude, you misinterpreted the Wikidata edits as ones involving alphabetizing because of an erroneous edit summary. I already pointed that out to you. There is nothing villainous about these edits. You should really just drop this already. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Don't "dude" me when repeating your foolishness. Fram (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Facepalm That you got things wrong is not my fault. Holster the attitude. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Cmt Mendaliv's suggestion "If there's something wrong at Wikidata, you're welcome to fix it." is completely off base. People who want to edit Wikidata know where it is. It has its own standards and we have ours. If Wikidata is serving up bad info, the solution from Wikipedia's standpoint is to not use it (WP:RS anyone?), at least without manually checking the info. Interwiki is different: the crosslinks were maintained by bots long before there was such a thing as Wikidata, and they were not part of article content. It's a useful navigation aid even if there are lots of errors, which there are. Google Translate is also very useful but we wouldn't put its output directly into articles. Wikidata isn't useless per se, but we shouldn't be mechanically inserting its contents into our articles.

  I can't get behind the siteban proposal because we've always treated that as drastic, but Magioladitis, please, take Fram's criticism seriously. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've no opinion either way on Wikidata (it has its uses, it has its issues) but it would be useful if Magioladitis (and indeed, everybody) could clearly explain that their edit now includes data from Wikidata, and also indicate that they've checked what's being brought in from Wikidata (as they shouldn't be changing the source of data to Wikidata without checking Wikidata is correct). Nick (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nick if you check my Wikidata contributions you will that not only I cheched my edits but I was updating Wikidata at the same time. During checking Social networkd templates, I sent some to TfD and I am updated some so that all social network templates share the same format. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me throw my opinion here: Blocks are for preventing damage to wikipedia, not as a punishment. Bans are also not punishment, they should be only given out when an editor is "Unclearly" acting in bad-faith, basically the mythical WP:WikiKraken Terrariola 09:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That's historically untrue. The community has banned many individuals who are contributing in good-faith but doing a poor job of it to the point that they're a net negative. WP:CIR, etc. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for closure

A somewhat biased summary and suggestion for closure:

• (1) It does not appear that there is any appreciable support for any kind of sanction against BU Rob13 for "stalking" Magioladitis, the original purpose of this thread.
• (2) None of the suggestions for sanctions against Magioladitis made by various editors appear to have anything like consensus-level support. The most that can be said may be that general annoyance with M. has reached what appears to be its highest level to date.
• (3) The suggestion to bring this to ArbCom also does not appear to have received consensus, although any editor (preferably one of the two subjects) is certainly free to file a case request at ArbCom whenever they feel it is necessary to do so.
• (4) Given (1) and (2), it might be a good idea for an uninvolved admin to close this with as "no consensus", with the possibility of a trout to Magioladitis for bringing what appears to be a baseless accusation to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment. I don't think it's biased either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading some of this, it looks like it has come to nothing. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like this to be closed. There appears to be both consensus that Magioladitis should be sanctioned and no consensus on what that sanction should be (which, of course, makes the consensus that there should be a sanction useless). The community has never been particularly adept at handling hounding issues during my time on the site, so this will need to go to the Arbitration Committee. Hopefully, they can resolve this by motion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I also concur with BMK's assessment of the situation, and with Rob's assessment that there's consensus for sanctions, but no consensus on what the sanctions should be. Nick (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Actually I don't concur with BMK's assessment, in part at least. Its clear from the above that at a *minimum* editors think Mag should be banned from automation completely.

• Nick - Supports interaction ban to Site ban - both of which would restrict him in the automation area heavily.
• Blades of Godric - supports one-way iban - given BU Rob's involvement in automation, this would also effectively restrict Mag future editing in that area.
• IP 173. - supports automation ban
• Myself - Anything up to and including site ban (would settle for one-way or be restricted from automation completely)
• Oshwah - Explicitly ban from all automation
• Power-enwiki - any sanction up to site ban
• Rschen7754 - site ban
• BMK - Strongly supports ban on automation
• Fram - Site ban

• Mendaliv - two-way iban
• Rich Farmbrough - no sanction

• Dianaa - no comment on restriction - advice to mag
• EEng - no comment on restriction - has expressed that it is Mag that is the problem [EEng adds later: After hearing others' comments, I'm totally behind an automation ban as at least a start. EEng 06:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)]
• Alex Shih - no comment on restriction
• Ivanvector - arbcom
• QEDK - no explicit support but feels any sanction short of a site ban is justified.
• Joefromrand - expletive.

Did I miss anyone? Its clear from the above that apart from Mendaliv, Rich and Mag themselves, everyone else either supports a complete ban from automation or a more serious sanction, with the remaining either no explicit comment but think there are issues. Unless any of those who argued for stronger sanctions are not happy with a less extreme one, I think there is more than enough to support a complete automation ban. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your summary of the !voting appears to be right, but I think your finding of consensus is wrong. Obviously, I'd like to agree with you that the automation ban (which I !voted for) has consensus, but when I look at the listing you made, I see no clear consensus at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I would oppose a complete automation ban right now as kind of pointless. The harassment/personal attack issues from Magioladitis haven't been in areas of automation lately. They've been in areas that I'm involved in but Magioladitis is not (e.g. files, my talk page, past arbitration, etc). I'm a bit confused on where the idea about a topic ban from automation even came from given that there's no new disruption since the last ArbCom case even tangentially related to automation. Color me confused. Such a sanction would actually be worse than no sanction, because it makes it look like the community is handling the issue when really they are not. That would prevent this from being kicked to ArbCom. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not only is it not a vote, most of those proposals weren't even on the table. Magioladitis had no fair notice of any of these alternative suggestions, and could not have mounted any real, effective defense to these myriad suggestions. All you show here is that there's no real concrete agreement on what should be done, and claim that one common denominator means that we've got consensus for sanctions. That's just not how it works, and you should know better. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

When you're such a stickler for accuracy, you shouldn't make claims like "Magioladitis had no fair notice of any of these alternative suggestions", a I explicitly posted a note on his talk page about my alternative solution, i.e. a full site ban.[29] Fram (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

See below. I'm talking about notice, not service. Your proposal was the unusual exception. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh pish-tosh to that: WP:NOTBURO. Once a sanction is brought up in a discussion such as this, it's on the table: M. doesn't need to get a notification of it by certified mail or something. If he's been following the discussion, then he's had more than fair notice that these ideas were being bandied about; if he hasn't been following it, that's his own fault, since he started it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm talking about notice, not service. What's being suggested here is the equivalent of saying Magioladitis consented to one or the other proposal by dint of not challenging that specific proposal. In reality, Magioladitis could not have realistically challenged any particular proposal because there was no concrete proposal on the table, except for a siteban at one point. It's simply neither fair nor feasible to require Magioladitis to challenge every single alternative proposal that was made if only because it would require a long, meandering response that nobody would read. It sets up a marvelous catch-22. But, as has been noted at ArbCom recently, using catch-22 situations to remove "the unwanteds" appears to have become ANI's trade. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Krissmethod again: POV vandalism

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

Please refer to my previous ANI filing about the user at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive963#Krissmethod_behavior_regarding_Christianity_and_White_Supremacy.

The behavior described in the previous report had resumed. Diffs: [30], [31]. This user's POV appears to be causing disruptive editing (removing relevant text, removing sourced text, adding insured text in its place), specifically the removal of mentions of Christianity from White supremacists related article.

This user seems to be a constructive editor on music article. Perhaps a topic ban around Christianity or race would be better than a block?

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Relevant discussion of interest. The POV editing is quite obvious and should be sanctioned; it's interesting to note it might not effective though, seeing the user has seemingly never engaged in any kind of communication (100% of 349 edits are in the mainspace). Alex Shih^Talk 06:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the complete absence of communication I don't think it's unreasonable to block the user until they agree to start collaborating. Communication is not optional. A Train^talk 07:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I certainly would not oppose a block in this case. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

As the editor hasn't edited since this report, I would wait for their next input before taking any action. Alex Shih^Talk 16:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Reasonable, but this editor has never responded to anything, including the previous ANI report. IMHO, if they edit again without responding, admin action would be appropriate. Otherwise, I think we should consider a t-ban. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Any further opinions or action on this. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sorry, didn't mean to keep you waiting. As the last AN/I was inconclusive, it's difficult to take any action if the user chooses to not edit (which I understand is what happened last time also). If no further input can be expected from this report, I will make it clear that any next edit from this editor without any attempt to communicate and address issues raised should result in immediate preventative block until the user starts to collaborate. I have left a note for the user. Alex Shih^Talk 06:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: works for me! I'll keep an eye on their contribs too. Last time they took a while to edit again. But if they cannot communicate and continue this unambiguous disruption, I think a block is warranted as you suggest. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs....again.

It is less than 2 months since User:E.M.Gregory behaviour at AfD was brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive962#E.M.Gregory.27s_behavior_at_AfDs

Some people just can't help themselves, I guess. I just pointed out to him, that in view of the above AN/I report, then having 19 comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack was a bit excessive.

Alas, that didn't help. Presently he has 21 comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack. I suggest the implementation of the following solution (which has been earlier suggested, but was not implemented): let EMG make !votes on AfDs, but forbid any follow-ups. Huldra (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment he has edited 2014 Dijon attack about 70 times since the AfD started, and contributed to the article before the AfD as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes power~enwiki that is true but several editors at the AFD discussion told Gregory his recent additions are highly misleading and grossly inaccurate. Note also another AFD discussion following the first ANI thread where Gregory excessively commented. Personally, I am more concerned about his compentency issues with sourcing but the AFD behavior is problematic and ongoing as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack brought up by TheGracefulSlick, Gregory made 15 edits to TheGracefulSlick's 21 (including some repititions of arguements by TheGracefulSlick). Gregory actually added sources to the article, added text, and demonstrated SIGCOV on the AFD discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yesterday Huldra came to my talk page to threaten to start this discussion. We have met from time to time, most recently, as far as I can recall, at a perfectly ghastly AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis. Here is the response I made on my talk page yesterday: I have participated in a couple of dozen AfD discussions today alone, searching, bringing sources to the discussion, sourcing poorly sourced pages. I have no idea of how many AfD discussions I take part in in a typical month, but it's a lot. I do know that I spend more time on these discussions than many editors do; I invest time and effort into seeking out sources to make fair assessments on a range of topics. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack is an unusual AfD; notice that the Nom has made 14 comments, as has an editor named Pincrete who wants to delete this terrorist attack. And also note that I have made 99 edits to the page 2014 Dijon attack. I don't just opine; I expand and source the articles I find at AfD. Many pages where I make multiple edits are collaborative efforts; recent examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable Orthodox Churches North America, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzz Patterson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American King James Version and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood. But, yes, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Anderson (journalist) I do tend to double back and make multiple comments as I find time to revisit specific AfDs and search for sources, or as some aspect of a recent AfD that bears looking into occurs to me. I believe that my work at AfD will hold up to scrutiny, but it will never satisfy you because you and I differ on the question of whether ideologically motivated attacks on civilians (terrorism) is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• E.M.Gregory yes I have commented 14 times but I asked you if we could mutually agree to step away from the AFD. Ironically, you replied simply with "WP:BLUDGEON" and preceded to bludgeon the discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• At the point when you made that suggestion, I had responded to your latest reiterated assertion that "there was no in-depth analysis" of the 2014 Dijon attack by bringing a list of 7 WP:INDEPTH articles from major international media. My earlier comments had included discussions of academic articles discussing this attack, two requests that your restore someone's keep iVote that you had deleted, and, swhen you ignored that, restoration of the keep iVote that you had deleted. The reason that I did not agree, however, was that I did not wish to endorse the wording of your "request" which was, "You give wall of text a new meaning E.M.Gregory. Can others be allowed to comment here without you trying to mislead them? You have already inserted your inaccuracies into the "article" (a fringe piece at this point) and I think the AFD should be spared these long lists and replies." I do not think that adding a list of INDEPTH articles is the equivalent of the comments you made on the page, accusations that I was "manipulating the sources," and, as I was sourcing and expanding the article, teh assertion that, "Even now, with the recent "expansion" (as it will soon be claimed) by Gregory, the article has been bombarded by fragmented quotes and half-truths to create the illusion of ongoing coverage. Gregory has even attempted to frame this as a terror attack despite no evidence in reliable sources. Shameful and shady." I do realize that you are attempting to make me lose my cool, and that you and Huldra are attempting to vote me off the island because I think many low-casualty terrorist attacks are notable and you disagree.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• You make it sounds as a conspiracy. Just for the record, I have no knowledge of work of TheGracefulSlick, nor for that matter, of Pincrete. E.M.Gregory: ok, just my 2 cents: if several editors find your work troublesome, it might, just might be because, eh, it is troublesome? And not because there is a vast conspiracy against you...Huldra (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pincrete and Drmies have also noted the inaccuracies and misuse of sources so I am not the only one [32][33][34][35]. "I do realize that you are attempting to make me lose my cool, and that you and Huldra are attempting to vote me off the island" is a clear sign that you think this is some sort of of contest or battle and I would ask you to retract such a baseless statement but I doubt you will. Window dressing the article is not helpful, especially when your additions to do not reflect upon the very sources you use. I apologize but I consider that a serious matter and I -- and others -- had to call you out on it several times.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping for Pincrete since his actions are being scrutinized by Gregory with being informed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• The above, like the AfD, is tl;dr. That's a heated AfD, as all AfDs on this general subject matter tend to be, and I don't think it's fair to single out EM Gregory when the atmosphere in general has been as heated as it has been. Trying to load it all on EMG seems a bit disingenuous. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

EMG's misrepresentation of sources on and during AfD's is commonly SO extensive, that if I did not credit EMG with more intelligence, I would have to question his competency. This is an enormous time-waster and I disagree with Coretheapple to the extent that personally I don't care tuppence whether these articles survive or not, but I do care, that discussions are 'poisoned' by misleading or false information being presented, to skew discussion. EMG behaviour IMO is a very long way from his claim above to be "improving sources". I was unaware of this ANI, and thus unprepared, however I will attempt to put together some diffs in the next 48hrs to illustrate. Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I went there to !vote (having read about it here, as I have not edited that article) and I was immediately subjected to polite but intense badgering. Let's close this out. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this has turned into a compentency issue. Misleading a discussion with false information is a serious charge and I am interested in the evidence Pincrete will surely provide within the timeframe he noted. Closing this out prematurely would only encourage the behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please could you explain what part of that essay opinion-piece is relevant with regard to User:E.M.Gregory ? MPS1992 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly MPS1992. Gregory has demonstrated he either does not have the competency to represent sources in an accurate way or he is purposefully adding false information to, as Pincrete says, skew discussions. One can only hope it is not the latter because that would be significantly worse than an editor who perhaps does not understand why including their own flair to content is a problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. Well, the essay WP:CIR that you mention, discusses competency issues that would render an editor incapable of contributing constructively. If an editor with proven ability to use the English language and proven ability in rational argument -- evidenced for example by "winning" many of these AfD disputes in which he seems to engage -- merely had a little difficulty in accurately representing sources, then there would still be reasonable hope that he could be taught how to do so. (For example by explaining to them that adding "their own flair to content" is a problem.) Therefore the essay would not apply. If someone is repeatedly misrepresenting sources then we don't need to start discussing opinion-piece essays about competence, we instead need to discuss whether steps need to be taken to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

And I certainly agree. This is not a secluded incident where Gregory mistakenly misinterpreted some sources. For months, Pincrete has had the thankless job of cleaning up articles Gregory has grossly misrepresented -- and I highly commend Pincrete for remaining diligent. That is why, and I think you will agree, we need to stay tuned until Pincrete gathers all the diffs illustrating this behavior. The community will need to discuss serious preventive measures to protect the encyclopedia from any more damage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

By chance, I will have little time/internet acces over next two days. I will attempt to put together diffs, but cannot guarantee to do so, Pincrete (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That's an absurd argument, MPS1992. Since "no consensus" defaults to keep, one can keep a shitty article and "win" by creating enough smoke to prevent a consensus from developing. Not from being competent in accurately representing what one's sources say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that a "smokescreen" approach has been deliberately adopted and repeatedly successful, that actually supports the point being made. Regardless, decisions here need to be made based on policy, not by making vague gestures to an essay that discusses an entirely different issue. MPS1992 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources either deliberately or by editor incompetence falls under WP:V. The information (it is claimed) Gregory is providing is not verifiable. For continually (either deliberately or through incompetence) violating a core policy its perfectly reasonable to restrict an editor from doing so. (edited to point out I have not actually vetted Gregory's contributions) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Gregory is not (at least usually per my impression) misrepresenting sources. Other editors in this discussion do however ignore or try to disregard sources who treat the subject matter (i.e. a classification of terror) in a viewpoint that does not agree with them - and not on marginal sources - on good strong RS. They also, instead of relying of SIGCOV to determine notability (assessing amount of sources, strength, persistence, diversity, etc.), tend to apply personal value judgement - e.g. by claiming events are "run of the mill" ROUTINE.Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not omniscient, but my conversations with User:Pincrete at Talk:2014 Dijon attack#Describing the UCL academic article, and Talk:2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson#ISIS involvement do, I think, show good faith on my part and the difficulty of working with User:Pincrete who often makes assertions without having read the material under discussion and without having knowledge of the topic. In the case of the 2014 Dijon attacker, he omitted the lede sentence of the segment of an academic article that we had come to the talk page to discuss: ""In many other cases, when confirmed diagnosis were present, there was a tendency to try to dismiss the possibility of terrorism altogether. For example, on December 21, 2014, an unarmed 40-year-old ran over....", then argued that there was nothing in the academic article beyond a mere rehearsal of news reports, a disingenuous way of failing to acknowledge the point about the mental illness/terroism nexus issue by these two scholars of terrorism. It then got worse. Pincrete made a number of sweeping claims about the insanity defense that are not specific to the French legal standards of insanity; fail to acknowledge that legal standards vary across borders; and conflate the status of this patient with the assertion that "beyond a certain point, the mentally ill are not legally culpable." He then continues by accusing the scholars who wrote the article and me of "seeking to imply is that they/you know more about the threshold of criminal culpability than medical experts who actually examined the individual." This, of course, goes beyond what the authors of the article I was citing, or I actually said, but, more importantly, it reveals Pincrete's ignorance of the fact that it is not the medical experts who decide whether to investigate a case as terrorism. 1.) This, and not the mental status of the attacker, is what is under discussion, and, 2.) under French law whether to investigate as terrorism or not is the decision of the public prosecutor, not the examining psychiatrists. (see:Terrorism in France#Terrorism and mental illness for sources on this. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-france-the-murder-of-a-jewish-woman-ignites-a-debate-over-terrorism/2017/07/23/4c79fe28-6bb9-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.5dc004846f3d this 2017 Washington Post article makes it clear that the decision to investigate crimes in France for as terrorism or hate crimes - or not, is a fundamentally political decision). None of us can know everything, but Pincrete's tendency to boldly wade into deep waters and topics he knows little about, aggressively delete and then endlessly argue at talk pages about sources he has not read related to complex topics with which he is not familiar is very troubling.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In the last ANI there was no consensus that Gregory comments on AFD are excessive, nothing has changed so I don't understand why bring this issue again and waste everyone time.--Shrike (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Shrike, that isn't the whole story. At the last ANI, one of the conclusions was that "The editor in question has acknowledged the valid concerns raised against his AfD participation, and has agreed to keep his commenting in the future "strictly on point". When I started this ANI, Gregory had made 21 comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack, presently he has made 25!! He simply cannot stop himself. Oh, and many of this comments have been, frankly, completely useless, like pointing to essays like WP:BLUDGEON. Huldra (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

EMG, I made a single error on a fairly minor detail IRO the 'Malmo' source, when it was pointed out to me (by you), I immediately apologised to you. Your many factually incorrect and largely SYNTHed claims about that source dominated the AfD about that article, you continued on an RSN to defend ALL those factually incorrect claims. NO 'new' eyes in either discussion supported your interpretation.

Regarding the 'Dijon' "was it insanity or terrorism" argument, I think it reasonable to ask of any 'academics' that before they advance an opinion on this subject (and I am not persuaded that they DO advance any opinion, rather than YOU selectively quoting an "implied opinion" about this based on half a sentence) that they should have actually inspected the medical records of the accused person and have some knowledge of psychiatry - neither of which is true AFAIK.

Implying that Fr authorities, for political reasons, designated someone as 'criminally insane' and therefore not culpable for a terrorist offence is an extraordinary claim, it needs more than a single ambiguous half sentence to support it. You actively prefer 'headline-y' half sentences that imply much but fall to pieces as soon as one asks what they actually mean. I prefer clear, RS'd neutrally phrased facts. I'm not 'on a mission' to 'nail' every instance which could possibly have an 'Islamist terrorist' element, AFAI can see that is your sole purpose on these articles and in these AfD's. Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's go back to to that 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. Soon after I created the article in July 2017, it was taken to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson where I presume you found it. It looked like this when you arrived: [36]. Whether you failed to read the sources or thought that the New York Times was lying, you reacted by deleting terrorism related categories from the page [37]. It was not a long page; the basic plot was that there was an arson fire at a Shia community center, a suspect was identified, tried and adjudicated not guilty. About a month after the trial concluded, the German police arrested a dude who was editing ISIS's Amaq News Agency website from Germany. I read the most astonishing story in the New York Times, describing how this ISIS editor was actually fomenting terrorist attacks; and the Malmo arson attack on the Shia mosque/community center was described in great detail. I wrote a BASIC aritcle. You began deleting swaths of solidly-sourced material. Removed the descriptor "Shia" [38] with edit summary "the relevance of this is not established." Removed terrorism categories again [39], this time with edit summary "Which bit of "the accused was acquitted of all charges at trial and the fire was deemed not to be terrorism-related" is difficult to understand?). I replaced them with edit summary "Undid revision 790082120 by Pincrete (talk) the part where the German police verify that this was an ISIS attack. You are verging on WP:DISRUPT]" You removed a sentence reading: " however, the subsequent arrest of an Amaq News Agency operative in Germany demonstrated that the attack was directed by the Islamic State."[40] with edit summary: "Report me .... BLP trumps anything and the source does not say this ... moving other quote". And so it went. I can only assume that you failed to read teh sources on which the article was based. Certainly, it was irresponsible, disruptive edit warring. And it all took place during a July 2017 AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson where you made 17 comments and I made 7. (Note that the July AfD was started by new User: CrispyGlover.) You made a series of similarly disruptive edits during the August 2017 AfD started by TheGraceful Slick Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson, where Slick and I each made 12 edits. Both AfDs closed as Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Whoa. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. Editors who want the short course should skip the above and just read this AfD. It demonstrates the extent to which TheGracefulSlick and her sidekick Pincrete are so cocksure of their righteousness that they edit aggressively, but without encountering the sources they dismiss, delete, and mis-cite.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down and remind yourself to remain WP:CIVIL. At this rate, we won't even need Pincrete's diffs to demonstrate your disruptive behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that this entire discussion is an ideologically-tainted WP:BATTLEFIELD mess. One editor creates articles that raise the hackles of another editor or group of editors who seek to delete them. Rinse, repeat. Happens over and over again. The combatants come here, slug it out. Enough. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I created only few of the many articles on terror attacks that User:Huldra, and User:The Graceful Slick, (together with User:Sport and politics who has moved on to editing other topics) have recently sought to delete in recent months. The articles these editors have tried to delete were created by many different editors over many years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

EMG, I don't intend to reply in detail about Malmo, relevant discussion is at the AfD and at article talk. However which bit of "German police have accused" entitles you here, in the article and at AfD to turn that into a "guilty verdict"? I believe I am correct when I say that German police did not even accuse the 'German' person of 'directing' any attack, they simply accuse of 'contacting' perp and reporting to Amaq. It is not up to German police, nor the NYT, nor you or me to decide guilt of a person in Sweden, and certainly not to expand an accusation of 'contacting and reporting' on behalf of Amaq, into one of 'directing by Isis'. The Swedish court's reasons, (if I remember correctly) for NOT charging with 'terrorist' offences were because under Swedish law, the incident was too trivial to be treated as 'terrorism', so the accused was tried for arson, and found not guilty. He was also, I believe ordered to be deported. So, even if the court had known about the German arrest, they would still probably have tried for arson, since they would still probably think the incident too trivial under their law. In spite of this you claimed repeatedly in the AfD that a new trial was going to happen in Sweden, a source was asked for, but never provided. Innumerable similar claims about the significance of the 'new German' arrest are in your imagination only. The NYT and other articles make no bigger claims than that the German arrest might provide clues as to how Amaq sometimes gets its info. The trial in Germany might uncover many things, but we wait for that to happen not write up the speculations of individual editors as fact. Pincrete (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry few diffs. Mainly for time reasons, despite me 'promising' them above. Besides I don't think anyone has any appetite for them and they mainly relate to the Malmo AfD and article talk. I stand by every assertion I have made here about the misrepresentation of sources in that article and at that AfD. Whatever EMG's motives may have been, the effect was to create a huge smokescreen of misinformation during that AfD, but that whole subject is now 'water under the bridge'. Specific diffs will be provided by me to back up any assertion above if requested.

However, since EMG is still criticising my contribution on that article, and that AfD, EMG could earn himself a moral victory (and an apology from me) if he could point me to where in this source there is reference to "However, new evidence showing that he had committed the attack on behalf of ISIS caused the acquitted man to be arrested and charged anew in late June 2017" text which he inserted in the article here, which was still in the article when I first edited it and which he repeated (as I recall) 3 times in the AfD discussion, to emphasise the 'ongoing significance' of the Malmo event. I can see no mention in the source of a Swedish re-arrest nor re-trial and the charging of a man in Germany with 'working on behalf of the ISIS news agency',by contacting the Swedish accused cannot be turned into "showing he had committed the attack on behalf of ISIS" without bucketloads of SYNTH and without completely ignoring BLP (even Islamists get a trial, last time I checked!) I've been asking for the source for the 'Swedish re-arrest and retrial' since the Malmo AfD, AFAIK the Swedish man is, and has always since his trial been, scheduled for deportation. I don't need 1000-word essays, simply where the source supports any of these assertions.

EMG, as I said above I made a single error on a fairly minor detail IRO the 'Malmo' source, when it was pointed out to me, I immediately apologised to you … you continue to defend ALL these factually incorrect claims, and are happy to use them as arguments at AfD (and here), to "get off the hook". Earn yourself an apology from me, and if you can't please stop repeating that I failed in some sense to correctly read the Malmo source, I'm tired of reading it, and one day soon others are going to get tired also. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• The first trial, the one where he was acquitted in April/May 2017, got a lot of coverage, I have just added material form 2 English sources showing that when he was acquitted he was immediately transferred to custody of Säpo so that they could start a new set of legal procedures (may be a "hearing", not a "trial" - most sources are in Swedish and I am not a Swedish barrister) to deport him. I'm unclear why you state that he was in Sweden illegally; he seems pretty clearly to have been a legal resident. What the New YOrk Tiems article states is: "The statement from the prosecutor explains that Mohammad G. had been communicating via social media with a man who went on to carry out a 2016 arson in Sweden."'.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

EMG, precisely as I have always claimed, no trial. No relationship claimed by source between the Swedish re-arrest (for deportation) and the German arrest, the Swedish deportation is going to be decided by its 'Migration Agency'. I didn't mention anyone's presence in Sweden being illegal (he was asylum-seeker I believe).

If I really believed you could not understand why accusations of "communicating on social media" with someone in order to feed back info to Amaq, was synonomous with "directing the same someone on behalf of Isis" ......! No apology for you then. I've long since abandoned any hope of ever receiving one myself. Pincrete (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Policy breaches and disruptive editing by User Graemp

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

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

In seven years of editing (five from this account) this is the first time that I have felt it necessary to report another user.

Over recent days User Graemp ('the user') has engaged in disruptive editing including breaches of WP naming conventions, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:3RR, and failure to respect a consensus arising from a discussion in which he was originally involved.

The user has a history of over 21,000 edits. Very many consist of inserting individuals' middle names into articles (principally relating to candidates in British elections recent and historical), by cutting and pasting forenames from biographical articles into piped links within other WP articles, adding multiple forenames for non-notable people mentioned within articles, and adding multiple forenames into red links for the potentially notable. Here[41] is an example of the significant effect such edits can have on the appearance of an article.

In the spring concerns were raised about edits such as this by several editors, leading to discussion on the UK Politics WikiProject Talk Page (here). The same matter has been discussed before (such as here and here).

The clear consensus arising from the March 2017 discussion was:

*1) Where a candidate's WP:COMMONNAME at the time of an election is known, that should be used in the election box.

*2) In other cases, any form of the candidate's name which is found in a reliable source may be used. Editors should not presume that a candidate was known by their first name without evidence (if there are two sources available for names and one shows use of name plus surname, that is prefered to the source using the full name)

*3) In all cases, titles should not be used, per WP:HONORIFIC. This includes Mrs/Miss/Ms, Dr/Prof/Rev, Rt Hon, and others.

In addition to the user and myself (as IanB2), the editors that participated were User:Frinton100, User:Doktorbuk, User:AusLondonder, User:Number 57, User:Darrenjolley, User:MilborneOne, User:JMPhillips92 and User:Warofdreams.

During this discussion I also referred to the implications of WP:BLPPRIVACY.

Additionally it is clear from existing WP:REDYES that editors should not create red links that do not conform to WP naming conventions, and that the red link should be a valid title of a page.

Unfortunately the user has recently resumed disregarding this consensus and returned to his previous habit of inserting middle names into articles wherever he can. This can easily create errors - such as a new red link for someone already articled under their common name[42] (Neil Shields) - or a second red page title for someone already red linked elsewhere under their common name.[43] That these existing pages and links are very easily found by a WP or Google search suggests either that the user is not troubling to research individuals' common names at all before making his edits, or is aware of the common name but wilfully ignoring WP naming conventions. At very best this approach to editing is irresponsible and unprofessional - editors' responsibilities to make checks prior to such edits is set out, for example, within WP:REDYES.

Some of the user's recent edits oppose the consensus position directly - for example re-introducing a title[44], and claiming that a full-name source should override one that establishes commonname[45]. Even where someone has published a book with their common name on the front cover the user reverted an edit because the source somehow does not meet his approval[46].

WP:BLPPRIVACY directs editors not to publish full names of living people except where already "widely published by reliable sources", with a "presumption in favour of privacy" especially for the not notable, because of risk of identity theft. The user has nevertheless introduced full names for non-notable individuals into various pages, where the people concerned are highly likely to be alive and without any evidence of pre-existing wide publication. Here are just a few examples[47][48][49]. In his edit summary the user expresses his view BLPPRIVACY not relevant as these edits are not edits to biographies of living persons - a position that would exempt every non-notable person from this policy (except in other people's bios), since none has by definition a WP biography, directly contrary to both the stated intention of protecting against identity theft and the clear statement in the policy lead that it relates to "adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (the any italicised in the policy article for emphasis).

To 'defend' his full name edits, including those of not notable living people whose full name is most unlikely otherwise to be widely published, the user has repeatedly reverted edits in clear breach of WPP:3RR - just some examples from yesterday: four reverts within several hours here[50][51][52][53], here [54][55][56][57] and here [58][59][60][61]. Other repeated reverts yesterday in breach of WP:3RR are as per his [edit history]. I have not edited these articles further after my third revert, and hence the full names of people within these articles are currently being published by WP.

The user's series of edits and reverts is preventing the consensus position and commonname convention from being consistently applied, and generating a stream of workload correcting errors and endeavouring to protect people who may only have stood for election the one time from having their full name published by WP. Such people are perhaps particularly vulnerable as, although the media will mostly have used their commonname, during an election it is common for media also to report someone's age, occupation, details of where they live and of any family. Putting their full name into the public domain is unnecessary.

The involvement of an Administrator is sought to consider what action is appropriate in respect of any policy breaches here. It would also be helpful if clarification could be given about the BLPPRIVACY provisions applying to all articles within WP without exception, and about the expectation that editors will respect a consensus decision (for more than just a few months), particularly if they participated in the original discussion and therefore have no excuse to claim lack of awareness. MapReader (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of any Admin comment I would intend to edit out the full names from these non-notable people from WP tomorrow. The intent of BLPPRIVACY in directing against publication of such details for non-notable people appears unambiguous to me. MapReader (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with potential offline canvassing

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

---

I am currently involved in a dispute on the page Tim Loughton. This discussion has turned sour and I have now disengaged from the discussion. There are though now new editors who have never edited the page before and have begun to defend one single position on the page. I feel that there could be offline canvassing going on, as the edits are being made to defend the position of a specific user, and are seemingly co-ordinated. I would like some advice on what to do on this issue. I would also like to know what to do if offline canvassing is going on to push a certain POV. I know I will be accused of paranoia, but this is coming across as orchestrated, add not spontaneous. Please also direct me to the correct place if i am in the wrong place.

User:SPECIFICO and User:Cassianto, have suddenly appeared on the page and are defending the and furthering the desired edits of User:Martinevans123. I probably have no way of proving offline canvassing. As they will go its just coincidence. It does though come across as being very unusual on such an issue, and for this page to have this kind of activity. Sport and politics (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Would a more likely scenario not be that you're in the wrong? It's seems more parsimonious than nefarious off-wiki canvassing, especially when you accuse others of "hiding behind admins" "having a paddy and trying to squabble" whilst telling them to "grow a backbone". This sounds like a situation where the discussion wasn't going your way so you're trying to fling some mud about. I don't see anything requiring admin action here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to draw attention to the response I received from Cassianto [62] after informing them of this discussion, with the standard notice. Sport and politics (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If you'd posted the semicoherent rant to which Cassianto was responding on my talkpage, my edit summary would be considerably less restrained than Cassianto's "Fuck off". ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't take too kindly to you, Sport and politics, stoking up drama here when all this requires is a bit of discussion on the relevant talk page. But no, seeing as you were already at 2rr, and me pointing out that should you continue to edit war, I'd be reporting you, perhaps you rather pathetically chose to come here in order to deflect the blame onto someone else? Cassianto^Talk 18:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

And while we're here, perhaps you could evidence the "off-wiki canvassing" you mention? Or perhaps you'd like to apologise for making baseless accusations? Cassianto^Talk 18:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment this is a content dispute regarding a British politician who was recently involved in a bizarre and widely-reported story. I'm not surprised to see the usual suspects show up, "offline canvassing" is the least likely explanation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "usual suspects"? Of whom do you speak? Cassianto^Talk 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • You edit a lot of UK articles, SPECIFICO edits a lot of politics articles, and neither of you are afraid of controversial topics. I'm happy to admit that I only participated on the talk page as a result of this ANI thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Maybe you could point me towards another "controversial topic" I seem to do a lot of hanging out around? I don't particularly like your assertion that I'm a usual suspect around controversy. I'm not. Cassianto^Talk 19:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
        • There are indeed fewer than I thought. But ANI is probably enough on its own for my statement to be technically correct. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if it is coming across that way. The issue here is that two completely random users jumped in, and then begin exclusively defending the position of one user, on the talk page, and did not engage in any talk page discussion on the issue. The two users have never edited the page before, AFAICT, and both began their editing at the around the same time. This is more than me winning or losing. If anything I was engaging in discussion on the issue, but withdrew when it became solely about everything but the issue at hand. I had added multiple sources for the information, and cleaned up the language. It seems very odd that it devolved into a complete removal of the information without discussion, with threats being thrown around, and the position on MartinEvans123 being pushed through, by these two brand new users to this article. Right or wrong on either side aside. The fact the two new users jumped in comes across as more than coincidence, and that they only dealt with the issue of concern to MartinEvans123 by furthering that position exclusively and to the hilt. I also find the response of Cassianto to be telling. Sport and politics (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sport and politics: Regarding "The fact the two new users jumped in comes across as more than coincidence," for Christ's sakes, please read WP:AGF. You've been told more than once to knock off this sort of thing. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is this because you are defending the use of the Daily Mirror - red top tabloid trash - as a suitable source in a BLP? And edit warred to try and force it back in? That's not good on any level. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly not making any progress, newspapers and their merits are for another place. tabloid or broadsheet. I am formally withdrawing this discussion. This clearly shows a wider issue here. If certain newspapers are taboo and unacceptable, then that policy must be made clearly and widely known. If that had happened then this would never have occurred. I consider this matter ended and closed. Sport and politics (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

For your information, and to nip this stupid accusation of off-wiki canvassing in the arse, I watch Martin's talk page. It is highly unlikely of him to engage in a dispute; moreover, your aggressive initial thread opener caused me to look in where I indeed saw the problem. I didn't realise you owned the article. Cassianto^Talk 19:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sport and politics:(Non-administrator comment) the policy is WP:OR WP:RS. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, it's WP:DAILYMAIL. This person's "If certain newspapers are taboo and unacceptable, then that policy must be made clearly and widely known" was probably added as a result of my adding our Daily Mail link to their talk. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sport and politics, you don't get to decide when the matter ends, I'm afraid: if you open a thread at ANI, every aspect of the matter is looked at, including the behaviour of the opening party; see WP:BOOMERANG. Now, you've been edit warring to force a tabloid source into a BLP article? And if you want to see that status of tabloids in BLPs, see WP:BLPSOURCES. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: It's likely, although not certain, that yes, they didn't know the Mirror isn't a good source. (To be fair, Wikipedia accepted certain levels of sourcing to tabloids for a very long time.) To quote this again, "If certain newspapers are taboo and unacceptable, then that policy must be made clearly and widely known" seems to be them saying they didn't know but now do know that these papers aren't reliable sources. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, Martin has more than 150 talk page watchers, and it's possible, just maybe, that posting a thread entitled "Hiding behind Admins", may have raised a few eyebrows on a few watchlists. GMG^talk 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pinged - Well I suspect that a bristly and boisterous editor like Martinevans123 has many talk page watchers. He is on my watchlist because I visited his page some time ago on an unrelated matter. And apparently everyone who's seen mention of the current content dispute has reached the same conclusion as to the merits. Not a coincidence at all. It's the network effect in action to improve WP, in this case by deleting the UNDUE BLP content. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ooh, Specifico! I am deeply touched, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• User:Sport and politics was advised about all this by Admin John and myself yesterday regarding the Mail and Mirror, but the fact that the issue is still being argued (by them, at least) 30 hours later suggests that they are increasingly hard of hearing. There was very little understanding (or at least so it seemed) of the relevant policies which they were themselves quoting, and their response was to abruptly refactor John's post] (contrary to WP:TPO), and soon after "close" loads of discussions on their talk, even whilst they going on. Which they allowed to do: but, equally allowable, of course, is for editors to draw the conclusion from them doing so that they just do not want to know- and such actions take the whole thing from the realms of a content dispute to one of (their own) behaviour. — fortunavelut luna 19:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like refactoring is an ongoing problem; almost every warning on the page (and the large number of them is indicative) has been struck by S&P. - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh. That doesn't bode well, I think, as a commitment to a collegiate environment. — fortunavelut luna 19:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• In my experience this is par for the course with this user. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I do wish people could be more specific as to who they are talking about. Cassianto^Talk 21:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Cassianto:S&P. Sorry for not being more specific- I had written more but I decided to tone it back and left out the name. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Yes indeed. You won't find me out on the greens, I'm too busy soaking it up at the 19th hole. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, off-line canvassing is likely near impossible to prove. I've found over the years, that liked minded editors tend to keep a close eye (watchlisting) on the same articles. As a result, making changes that such like-minded watchers will oppose, is likely going to result in 'no' changes being made. In the end, if enough editors argue that red is blue? then the article will say - red is blue. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

How very dare you! Some of us are still trying to ""grow our own backbone". By 'eck lad, I reckon it's t'early bath for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If there are no suggestions for boomerang sanctions against User:Sport and politics, this can probably be closed. Personally, I think a tuna-sized WP:TROUT and a warning is enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:Sport and politics for 48 hours. I want to stress that this is not a boomerang block, and nor is it for breaking WP:TPO on their talk. It's for this revert; such reverts are not allowed on a BLP and I had previously alerted them to this. --John (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Block by John

re: [63]

This was originally to be a new section. But in the collation of the interminable diffs, I realised that it was already on ANI, and so I'm posting it as a sub-section instead.

John is well known hereabouts. He is known as the author of the absolute ban on the use of the Daily Mail as a source for WP articles (except that clearly it isn't - see how many articles are still reliant upon it). He is also (in his own mind at least) the author of similar bans on the mention of all other UK "tabloid" newspapers.

He is also a bully.

He is one of the worst of WP admins, and the absolute exemplar of what is wrong with WP: its acceptance of a bullying clique who back themselves up with invented pseudo-policies and pursue the lesser editors who are outside the nomenklatura.

Today this relates to Tim Loughton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a minor MP in the UK, and Sport and politics (talk · contribs). I have no connection with either of these, although I'm only too familiar with John.

There is a minor news story around Tim Loughton, around the perennial subject of UK MP's expenses. It is a very minor issue. S&P has been editing this article for a while (maybe he's their local MP? I don't know) Whale7 (talk · contribs) (who plays no further part in this story) added a recent note, that this MP had claimed a substantial amount of taxpayer's dollars for their bathwater (yes, their bathwater). This was removed as "sorry, but need a better source than The Mirror" and restored by S&P as " Mirror is a reliable source, simply disliking does not equate to a 'better source needed' what next the sun and mail are rejected?" Both of these are reasonable actions. The Daily Mirror is a UK tabloid newspaper, meaning that it is printed with small words on small paper. There is no WP sanction in place against it as RS. This was (as is always the pathetically predictable behaviour hereabouts) reverted, then re-added by S&P with more refs.

This is how WP is constituted to work. I don't give a flying Farage what John reckons to the substance of bathwatergate, but when both the Guardian and the BBC are covering a story, WP is so constituted that we see that as meeting WP:N.

At which point John steps in. With his regular (he dispenses this to everyone) "mandatory notice" [64]. This is a piece of obsolete bullshit purporting to be an Arbcom ruling with great specificity as to the particular article, editor and author involved. In fact it is nothing of the sort. It is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (2008), where the interested reader might realise that it was actually rescinded in 2014 and replaced with [65] - which I think paraphrases quite neatly as, "BLP applies to BLPs". A sentiment that no-one here seems to disagree with.

This "mandatory notice" is flannel. It carries no meaning, other than for John to bully other editors with.

Back to Tim Loughton. Where we see another two-step of removing the Daily Mirror ref: " unnecessary" / "selective removal based on persona; bias". Again, perfectly acceptable WP editing. At most one might ask S&P mildly to "comment on the edits not the editor". Note that the challenged content is still sourced to two other unchallenged non-tabloid RS.

Suddenly a wild Cassianto appears. That always bodes well. See above. They blank the Mirror ref twice, "Please use a reliable source" "If you revert again, I'll report you." (which is still better than Cassianto's more typical "Fuck off. Undid revision 806246857 by Sport and politics")

The usual mess ensues. S&P ends up blocked and the (sourced) content is removed as "Delete per WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS -- see whether this is discussed a year hence?"

Same old, same old (and read the various Talk: pages). So what are the problems here?

• S&P sourced the content to multiple RS That is what they are required to do. This is what we ask of editors, we do not ask much more than that, this is what they did.
• John blocked with a rationale of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement. Now just which part of that did S&P breach? Because I sure can't see it.

As I see this, this is John bullying editors again. That is a long-running problem. It is why John is unfit to be an admin.

Specifically, this is part of John's crusade mentality against UK tabloids. Now, he's allowed to do that. He's allowed to advocate changing policy such that sources are considered non-RS and some are considered so far beyond the pale that they mustn't appear anywhere at all. Perhaps the WP:DAILYMAIL has reached that stage, although WP is still clearly heavily dependent upon it. But this wasn't the Daily Mail, it was the Daily Mirror. And I don't see WP:DAILYMIRROR anywhere in our policies. Until such time as it is, it is wrong of John to act as if the Daily Mirror is a proscribed journal.

S&P was asked to provide better sources, and they did so. That is what we ask of editors. We should not block editors for doing the very things that we ask of them. Nor should we then persecute them as a result.

Should there have been three sources or two? Well, as there were two RS and the Daily Mirror, we can lose the Daily Mirror. But disagreement over that is not a blocking offence, and it is certainly not a blocking offence citing some nonsense claiming to be the holy writ of Arbcom!

Does this pass WP:UNDUE? Maybe, maybe not. But again, that is no blocking offence. And with two RS behind it, I think it's incumbent upon those removing it to show that both the Grauniad and the Beeb have been excessive in their coverage. Again, this is no blocking offence, and it is no reason to cite some rescinded Arbcom motion from a decade ago.

I see no reason to censure S&P over this. But I do see yet more evidence of John being a bully, and an unfit admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I took the above at face value and noted that the WP:BLPBAN had indeed been struck out, and unblocked S&P. However, I then noticed that it had been replaced by WP:NEWBLPBAN (listed further down the same page) which appears to continue to give admins the right to impose discretionary. As a result, I've had to undo my unblock as it seems to have been in error. I would say that a clearer link to that section from the struck out bit would have been helpful and probably prevented me making this mistake. Number 57 00:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So just what is the BLP-blockable action that has taken place here? Some (let's say "uncomplimentary") claims have been made about a LP, and they have been sourced to multiple RS. How does that breach WP policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Andy, I am not going to comment on the topic of your subsection here, but your mention of WP:N above seems to be mistaken. Perhaps you would take the time to review the policy, please, and consider how and whether it applies to questions about the inclusion of material in articles whose existence ("notability" in our terms) is not disputed. MPS1992 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but just which part of this depends upon WP:N? The disputed content would seem to meet WP:N (Such that Bathwatergate would not be a Snow Delete at AfD), but the relevant criteria for inclusion would actually be WP:UNDUE (which is still up for reasonable debate, if anyone will permit that without threat of summary blocks). But I find it hard to see how something meets WP:N, and yet is claimed to be such an obvious rejection for WP:UNDUE that we shouldn't even discuss it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If it doesn't depend upon WP:N then why go to such lengths to mention and justify WP:N above? MPS1992 (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Such lengths"? I have barely mentioned WP:N. Only inasmuch as that an issue which gets mentions in two RS, and the Daily Mirror too, can be reasonably assumed to be meeting it, and thus meeting WP:UNDUE. This isn't absolute, it's still up for debate, but it's an indication that it's likely to be so. Why are you so focussed on WP:N, in what is really an issue about admin bullying? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So perhaps it is WP:UNDUE that you need to re-read. That section of WP:NPOV does not mention WP:N at all. A sub-section of it, though, does say "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". MPS1992 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If you think it's UNDUE, then you're welcome to discuss that on the article talk: page. I'm undecided - could be either way. It is not obvious, one way or the other. But the point here is that a question of UNDUE shouldn't be settled by blocking the editor you disagree with under dire penalties of Arbcom. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't bring up WP:UNDUE -- you did. I didn't bring up WP:N -- you did. If the issue is the bullying block and the travelling circus accompanying it, then you would have been better off sticking to a neutral description of what was done and why it was unreasonable, not rambling round multiple policies that are irrelevant to the issues at hand and ending up with a twenty-paragraph report complete with allusions to Pokemon. If you'd stuck with such a neutral description of the issues at hand, one might hope your report would have been better received here than it has been. MPS1992 (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've notified John of this sub-section on his talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• And to answer the complaint of "hounding John over one minor incident", also take a look at Manny Pacquiao where Spacecowboy420 was repeatedly blocked, with the same threatening and outdated Arbcom banner, after posting content with six sources to support it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

And to your follow-up email, why yes, I am going to Hell and so is my "country of homosexuals". Even the "homosexuals in government". Should we be guarding the Purity of our Essences too? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• What a lot of unneccessary twaddle (riddled with inaccuracies and laced with spite. UK red top tabloids are utterly unsuitable gutter fodder for BLPs (and much encyclopaedic content too). They are inherently unreliable and not just "small words on small pages: that's a misrepresentation of what the tabloid press is in the UK. It's why there is a mention in WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." The Mirror should never have been used as a source in the first place and S&P should never have edit warred to keep replacing it.

After you take away the inherently unreliable tabloid sources, we're left with what should have been used in the first place: the citations to the Guardian and BBC. Just because something appears in sources does not mean we have to use it, and anydiscussion should not have been edit warred in after removal, but discussed on the talk page. WP:WEIGHT would seem to be a useful one to read here, and to consider whether this will be noteworthy in. A month, let alone passing a five-year test, so WP:RECENTISM would also be one to look at. Either way, if S&P had used the talk page when challenged rather than edit warred (over BLP tabloid sourcing, for goodness sake), much of this, including this I'll-advised grouch thread, would have been avoided. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

When WP:DAILYMIRROR becomes policy, then you and John might have a point. Until then, there is no blanket ban on the use of the Daily Mirror as a source. Of course we should be careful with it, but the DMirror is not the same as the DMail.

What does that mean here? Well it means that S&P's use of the Mirror is permissible and up for discussion, as usual (it might then get removed, but they shouldn't be punished for advocating it). It is not subject to John's Arbcom threats (citing a long-rescinded Arbcom motion, which is another problem) and summary blocking. I don't agree with S&P here - we don't want the Daily Mirror and we don't need the Daily Mirror, we have two RS instead. But they still get to make that case, not just get blocked on sight.

There is a heavy Arbcom motion to enforce BLP. That might be applicable if this was a case of content only sourced to a non-RS. But that's not what's happening here: the content is anyway sourced to two RS and we're only arguing about a non-RS on top of that. The punitive blocking imposed here is not justified by that issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. And if you think a UK red top is a justifiable source for a BLP, you have a very different view than I of what a reliable source is; it's exactly why we have BLPSOURCES, and edit warring to force in a reference from the gutter press is wrong on several levels. I am sorry you cannot see just how poor the tabloids are in relation to their standards of factual reporting. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I am not advocating the use of the Mirror as a source here. I disagree with S&P's use of it. But I cannot see the Arbcom penalty against unsourced BLP being used simply against the additional use of a non-RS source (which is anyway RS-sourced). If S&P wants to advocate this, they get to do so and we discuss it, they are not summarily blocked for it.

And again, WP:DAILYMAIL is neither WP:DAILYMIRROR, nor is it even implemented on WP (there are still many ongoing uses of the Mail). If you and John want to act as if it is, then you have to get agreement to impose such a blanket ban first, not just block editors who are still within policy because you think that there ought to be such a ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have misrepresented nothing, so please don't start smearing me too. I suggest you read carefully what I have written next time. I also suggest you strike the PAs in your long opening statement, and correct the errors in fact you have allowed to creep in. Repeating the straw man argument isn't helping your case either. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• May we just treat Dingley like the mad uncle at the Christmas party who talks before he speaks and who’s had a touch too much Potato Wine. He clearly has an axe to grind and he needs to go and grind it somewhere else. Now toddle off Andy... Cassianto^Talk 07:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Propose a trout for the OP for excessive dramah-mongering and PAs, and the closure of the thread. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Too many accusations being thrown around, light/heat etc. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Propose a trout to John for the clearly-bad block, part of a long-term pattern of bullying and bad blocks and to you for blame-the-victim support of his bullying. This has not yet risen to the level of an ARBCOM de-sysop case but it appears headed that way unless John starts taking WP:AGF more seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Follow-up: Perhaps predictably, John responded to this by bullying me on my talk page. John, you requested that I post diffs backing up what I said: here's a diff. Again, you need to learn to take WP:AGF more seriously, and take adminship as a mop to help you clean up content rather than a bully club to make people respect you. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC) "Blame the victim"? What bloody rubbish. Edit warring to use a tabloid trash source in a BLP is a crass and stupid thing to do, particularly while ignoring the talk page for part of that time. S&P was warned not to do it and the continued to do so: they put themselves in a blockable position and are not a "victim" in any sense of the word. (And that's without looking at their very poor approach to striking comments from others on their talk page, which is a blockable offence in its own right). - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Users are allowed to strike comments from others on their talk page; see WP:OWNTALK. It is not an offense, let alone a blockable one. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC) No, they are allowed to remove them (thus showing that they have been read). Striking should be done by the author (WP:STRIKE, and) see WP:SIGCLEAN "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." In any case, OWNTALK actually states " User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier"- a primary purpose which it hard to see fulfilled in the striking of others' comments and hatting discussions mid-conversation, as S&P did. — fortunavelut luna 14:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC) No, David Eppstein: very wrong. As per the above, editing other people's comments (which is what striking is), is categorically not allowed. OWNTALK does not say anything about allowing the editing other people's comments. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC) I see that I misread "strike" in its meaning of remove rather than the more technical "mark up as strikeout" that appears to have happened. I agree, modifying but not removing others' comments is not allowed, but at best this warrants a warning (that the comments should be removed altogether rather than reformatted) rather than anything more serious, at least unless the issue is much more persistent (I have blocked someone within the last months for modifying comments on their own talk, but there it was more persistent). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC) It is persistent - it's been going on since June, and includes the 4 September – reversion of strike; and yet, the next edit: edit warred back again. This is not acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC) By "persistent", I meant persisting after a clear statement on his talk that this is an inappropriate thing to do. The edit summary "why u strike my post?" is not that statement. So, when and how often was he warned not to do that? Because I didn't see it on a quick scan through the edit summaries of his recent talk page changes, but the talk page has been very active so I could easily have missed it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Ignorance is no defence. On WP, as in RL, not everything needs to be warned. I'll clarify, however: I am not advocating a new block for S&P, but given the many notices and warnings on their talk page, and their edits of other people's comments (I really don't see the need for a warning - we're into 'bloody obvious' territry), I do have concerns over their approach. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC) For the more arcane and bureaucratic of our rules, ignorance absolutely is a defense — we should be guiding our users to behave better, not looking out for minor misbehaviors, throwing incomprehensible notices on their talk pages as a cover, and then blocking them when they fail to understand the notices. A block should be a last resort when we have tried repeatedly and failed to persuade an editor to behave better, not the first thing we think of when we see them disobeying a rule that we know about and they don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Editing other people's talk page comments is not in any way one of "the more arcane and bureaucratic of our rules". As to the rest of what you have written, I think you are either conflating different parts of the conversation, or you failed to read the bit where I said that I am not advocating a block. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Eppstein, you an Admin, presumably know that the Sanctions template says that it's not an accusation of wrongdoing and states, "Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions." -- Hardly anything to get one's knickers in a knot. If an editor finds that "incomprehensible", it raises serious questions about the editor's competence. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Propose trout for Dingley and the OP; continued block of the OP; and the speedy closure of this rather boring thread -- this is quickly tuning into a peanut gallery and I think we should all go about our business. Cassianto^Talk 20:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not inclined to unblock Sport and Politics as a) I have no confidence they won't go straight back and reinsert the Mirror source that consensus has already said should not be put in, and b) it would be wheel warring. I suggest everyone takes a deep breath and remembers that the best thing to do when you see a citation to The Sun or The Mirror is find a better source first, if you can, and if somebody takes it out, don't fight over it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support block A boomerang block would have been perfectly justified here, the bending of WP:TPO less so. But ultimately the editor concerned has acted in a sufficiently WP:BATTLEGROUND manner- on both the article talk and their own user talk- that blocking is demonstratably preventative; as R333 touches on above, there is absolutely no indication that S&P wouldn't revert to their previous behavioural pattern. — fortunavelut luna 12:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support block - we should not tolerate poor sourcing anywhere; we should descend upon it like a ton of bricks in BLPs. Edit warring it back in? Well that's inexcusable. -- Begoon 12:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

But this is not about poor sourcing. There are already two RS in there. For Manny Pacquiao there were five or six.

We cannot justify the punishment for unsourced BLP in a case that's a far more minor issue about using a poor source just in addition. That's not even a 3RR issue, certainly not BLP. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Have we gotten around to talk of blocking Dingley yet, or are we still just circling around while S+P watches the show? It's a BLP. The WP:BURDEN was on the editor who wanted to include the undue content. The DS notice is longstanding widespread practice. The attack on the Admin is what the Brits call rubbish. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Circling, I think. Cass, I think you meant "talks before he thinks" -- Begoon 13:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Begoon: That could be the Potato Wine, of course ;) — fortunavelut luna 13:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

...@Begoon:, lol, cheers. I knew what I meant. If you two don't pack it in, I'll do a Dingley and start a thread about this thread. Cassianto^Talk 16:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the lilac. But yeah... -- Begoon 13:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Did someone mention tasting? Only in the proper circles, I hear. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ever decreasing circles? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about UNDUE or V? Because BURDEN refers to Verifiability, not UNDUE. S&P had met this already, by giving the Guardian and BBC sources. Use of the Mirror source is outside this.

We can still question UNDUE - but that's a subjective editorial decision. But there is no wiggle room left: RS was met, V was met, BURDEN was met. It is wrong to block S&P with an unref-BLP scale punishment when they did no such thing, and all they did was to minorly edit-war over adding an additional (but poor) source. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting question. I think we're mostly past that kind of nonsense now, and have moved on to topics like Elkie Brooks and wine tasting. Funny place, ANI. Perhaps nobody agrees with you? -- Begoon 14:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

But Andy, how many of those other sources linked an hour in the bath with £622 in MP's expenses? And exactly why did the Mirror choose to do that? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC) .. maybe we all ought to join Jon Kabat-Zinn, the "the godfather of mindfulness", and just chill for a bit?

Robert Booth (18 October 2017). "Tory MP who has hour-long baths claims £662 water bill on expenses". Grauniad. Right there in the title. Maybe this isn't obvious to the non-Brits, but we have a problem with MPs and their expenses claims, at a time of "austerity" for everyone else. I don't care if an MP takes a bath or boils their head, but why should I pay them extra to do so? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide a link for that, Andy? I didn't see that in the Guardian ref used in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. it was originally 40 quid cheaper in The Mirror.

It's just the same old one I read days ago, when this story broke and I read it over coffee - the Graun is my usual newspaper. If you want it on paper it was in the Metro on the train too (can't remember if they said £662 or £622). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That Mikey Smith, eh. Needs to check his sources I think. And his headlines? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Still love his poetry though.

Thanks for the link. So not just The Mirror who chose to link the expenses? Perhaps a good job Loughton didn't also claim for his cold water? I guess you might want to raise it at Talk:Tim Loughton? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Please refresh yourself on WP:BURDEN specifically superscript 2: "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems to miss the point -- the edit in question did not add disputed material back, it only added an (additional) source for material that already remained in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No. The point is he escalated to this board with a startlingly ridiculous suspicion after every other editor disagreed with him and I removed the offending nonsense from the article of this exemplarily well-groomed MP. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So they were blocked for raising this at ANI? And that's supposed to be OK?

If they were blocked for any other reason than adding unsourced BLP (as the cited Arbcom motion warns against), then this is a bad block. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sport and politics has contested the block. Usually such unblock requests should be discussed at WP:AE or WP:AN, but since we already have a discussion about it here, opening another one seems redundant. Here's the request from their talk page. Huon (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of what Arbitration Committee decision is being referred to here. I am also unaware of why this block has been imposed as a result. The reason seem to be very vague. There is also an AN/I discussion which has petered out and resulted in at the time of writing a warning. Some context, and information, on firstly the decision being referred to. A boilerplate warning which was posted here as a result of a content dispute with another editor, was inflammatory, and not explained. It was just a boilerplate, without explanation. This also appears to be one editor acting as judge and jury without oversight. The issue being referred to is very unclear in a context manner, and they are now acting outside of an on ongoing An/I. This feels unexplained, and confusing. A few words of non-boiler plate explanation on the issues, other than going you are editing an issue which has issues, would be appreciated. The confusion levels here are through the roof. The content in dispute had six sources, of which one appears to be in contention. Until about 3 hours ago I had no idea that there was such a blanket ban on its use. This feels to be as if I am being punished for going about and doing something which I was previously free to do. In this case add the source, and the rules were changed and no notice of this change was given. This does not help explain the block, or why it has been given. It has simply just been given. Some words of explanation, other than "familiarise yourself", contained in a boilerplate are needed. As familiarise yourself could mean anything. There was also no indication of where to find the information to familiarirse oneself. Sport and politics (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no blanket ban on The Mirror. But it's not a great source, so it was reasonable for the other editors to disagree with its inclusion for that reason. You should have taken the issue to the talk page of the article (where it is now under discussion) rather than reverting two times, but an appropriate response to your reverts would have been to warn you for WP:3RR and wait until you had done so four times before blocking. And your request for an explanation is not only reasonable, but requires a response under WP:ADMINACCT, and the response you got was clearly (from your still-evident bewilderment here) inadequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

David, I had already taken the issue to the Talk page with this edit. But I had to wait quite a while before I got any response there? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sport and politics: You were informed of the ArbCom decision by John with this edit. General Ization ^Talk 15:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

He was informed about a decision about unsourced information to BLPs. What he was doing that was apparently objectionable was re-adding one disputed newspaper source to a statement in the article that already had two other better newspaper sources. In what way is the arbcom notice germane to that dispute or informative about what course of action he should have taken? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Eh? He was informed the article is subject to discretionary sanctions due to being a BLP - with the standard template linking to the case where the topic area was made subject to discretionary sanctions. At that point if you continue to revert in disputed content, you are subject to a block at a minimum. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then it's a good thing that they didn't do that.

This block was issued for this and this edit. Not for re-adding content, but re-adding an additional ref from a newspaper source that the blocking admin has a long-running crusade against. The content was also already sourced to a number of other RS sources at the time, which remain unchallenged.

The content itself was removed some hours before the block was issued, thus this block was punitive, not preventive.

The action for which the block was issued did not change the content of the BLP, thus was outside the scope of the Arbcom motion.

The linked Arbcom motion is so unclear (actually it was rescinded years ago) that several editors and at least one admin have been unable to make sense of it.

The blocking admin also has such a track record of campaigning against UK newspapers as sources that their block here also raises concerns as WP:INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Close - It doesn't do anyone any good to argue for 72 hours over a 48 hour block. If someone doesn't like a block as an AE enforcement action, then pick one of no shortage of other reasons to justify a short block, not least of which is the fact that this user had fundamentally become unhinged from AGF in any form. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but being obstinately and copiously wrong in the face of people attempting to explain your wrongness is not the way we build an encyclopedia. They can come back tomorrow and decide whether they want to continue down that path. Hopefully they don't. GMG^talk 21:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I also support closure of this thread/subsection, but before doing so, I want to make sure everyone passing by is comfortable with the kind of situation here, which for me is somewhat unnecessarily inflammatory regardless of the context. Thanks. Alex Shih^Talk 23:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "comfortable" here. But I read that thread very much as the playground bully showing up to say "'Ere, don't you call me a bully, you've got 24 hours to retract that or else." and their friends standing around egging them on. Then they literally start counting down the 24 hours! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No objection to closure, although far from "comfortable". I think both David and Andy have issues that go beyond the scope of the original thread. With Andy's latest link, it seems even the original matter may not be fully resolved, but would be far better addressed at Talk:Tim Loughton. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

And of course, more veiled threats from John at User_talk:Andy Dingley#October 2017 and User talk:Andy Dingley#Mandatory notice. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Does he think that the more threats he makes, the more important he is? What a sad little person. Perhaps needs some assistance. MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You do know you can receive a block for a personal attack a time ANI? Can I suggest you strike your insult. (And not try to put back the PA in the thread header, per talk page guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But it's worth pointing out that double standards are not a good look. MPS1992 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you now trying to throw insults at others saying people have double standards? Good grief.... It's still probably best if you were more careful in your wording. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Diffs, laddie, are you afraid of diffs? I just gave you two. You can throw insults wherever you like, you'll still look silly. MPS1992 (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't "laddie" me, MPS1992. I don't need to give you diffs as I'm replying to you about the comment you just made. I've made no insults so in addition to being more careful in your wording, it's probably best if you actually read what has been written and think about what has been said, then think again about what you are going to say. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Diffs, diffs, diffs, of course you don't need to provide diffs, you splendid example you. I give you two and you fall apart in a heap. ("actualy"?) Carry on laddie. MPS1992 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Bye bye, MPS1992. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Goodbye laddie. MPS1992 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

OK to close. All the complaints here seem to be based on the premise that a group of unrelated editors could not possibly reject the accusations of S+P, Dingley, and Eppstein unless the unrelated editors were all in cahoots meatpuppets or maybe (coming attractions?) sockpuppets of Martinevans123. Stay tuned. As the early comments indicated, there are so many simpler explanations. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I'm that committed. Sorry to disappoint. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Close nothing except for WP:TROUT is needed at this point. I don't think John's WP:AC/DS block was a good idea, but it was clearly permitted by WP:AC/DS, and would have been a reasonable result based on this discussion. Everyone should eat their fish and move on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Clean start

A lot has been said about me and what I did and did not know. I am writing this to clarify my position. A lot of conjecture, and assumptions have been made regarding what I did and did not know, and what I was and was not thinking. All off which reads like an out of body experience. Most of it is simply way off the mark.

I would first like to start with the "mandatory notice", placed on my talk page by John. I am intentionally using quotation marks in relation to that notice, as I believe it is deficient and not fit for purpose boilerplate. The notice was placed on my talk page with no initial or subsequent explanation. It was simply dumped on my talk page without description as to why it was placed on my talk page. John simply acted after being prompted to the talk page by Martinevans123. See this diff. "I wonder what John has to say". A statement of that kind does not come across as constructive, or that User John is going to be impartial. It is a veiled threat from MarthEvans123. I am aware this will almost certainly be disputed, but it is a threat pure and simple. It is also "calling an administrator", which can easily be construed as WP:canvass. The canvassing page in a nutshell states "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open!" Martinevans123 clearly pre-selected John as they knew John would most likely act in a way desired by Martinevans123.

The next issue I shall to cover is the claim of an "ongoing edit war". This is not the case. I had stopped editing the page, and had stopped engaging on the talk page. I had withdrawn and walked away from the discussion. Please see this diff as confirmation I had disengaged

I shall now address claims of explanations and understandings of the issues John was concerned with. Any claims of explanation or knowledge of the issues John was concerned about are simply untrue. The issues were never made clear by John, and the notice posted was and is insufficient. The linked to ArbCom decision, does not at any point mention tabloid newspapers, it is about general BLP issues. John should have at the very least made clear what the issue at hand was. Instead John simply expected knowledge of what was in their issue was without explanation. An issue of this seriousness, as John see's it, should have been made abundantly and expressly clear, explicitly. It should not have been vague or open to any interpretation. The ArbCom decision in the notice is very general, and I fail to see how that is sufficient to justify John's block rationale. This issue at hand hereis a reliable sources issue at heart, specifically is the Daily Mirror is a reliable source.

The claims regarding knowledge that all tabloids were banned from all BLP's, shall now be addressed. I would first like to begin by stating that I was not aware of such a blanket prohibition on all tabloids, and have yet to be shown that all tabloids are banned in all circumstances. I have only been made aware explicitly of the prohibition on the Daily Mail. I have though not been made aware of such a 100% blanket prohibition on the use of all tabloids in all circumstances on BLP's. John will claim they have made this clear. They have not. I invite John to provide evidence that they have made it explicitly clear that all tabloids are 100% banned from all BLP articles, and that they made this known directly to me.

Next I will move on to the block itself. John has acted in a number of ways which I take serious issue with. I shall set them out as follows. A 48 hour block is a steep punishment, all for inserting a once previously acceptable source into an article. This is their sole and only reason given form imposing the block. There are many less restrictive, and less punitive measures which John could have imposed. John could have imposed an article ban on myself, for the Tim Loughton article. John could have imposed an interaction ban between myself and the other editors involved in the dispute. John could have imposed a topic ban≈ on UK politicians or BLP articles. John did none of these. John imposed in the first instance a 48 Hour hard block. John has in my opinion not acted proportionately but has in my opinion acted punitively. John has not acted proportionately or in a manner to educate on the issue at hand.

I also have serious issues with the procedure of the issuance of the block, by John. John simply placed a block notice on my talk page. They did not at any point and have not at any point placed on my talk page the reasoning for their imposing of the block. John only posted their reason to this noticeboard. I find this very discourteous at best and disdain towards me at worse. In all i believe john has fallen very short of what is required of him as an administrator, as can be found at WP:ADMINCOND. I also specifically draw the communities attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Use_of_administrator_tools_in_disputes, as incorporated into WP:TOOLMISUSE. I believe John is using their role as an administrator to further their position against the use of tabloids as a source.

I do sincerely hope that this is taken seriously, individuals remain calm, and there no attempts to engage in anything other than constructive discussions on this serious matter. I am hoping for a fresh slate to this, with everything previous being water under the bridge. I also hope this is taken seriously by all users. I was hoping not to bring this to WP:AN/I, but it appears as if no fora exists to make a formal complaint against the action of an administrator, other than going straight to either a request to de-sysop, or the arbitration committee.

Many thanks Sport and politics (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

" I believe it is deficient and not fit for purpose boilerplate." - whatever else comes out of this, I very much agree with that point and would hope that this notice gets clarified and its links fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sport and politics, I certainly will dispute that any message by me to you at Talk:Tim Loughton or anywhere else was "a threat pure and simple" or was in any way intended to be "WP:canvass." I can assure you I had no idea how John "would most likely act." Over the years I've seen him act in a variety of ways to contentious sources. I named him as someone with a lot of experience in dealing with tabloid sources. And I only chose to name and link anyone at all as I didn't seem to be getting very far discussing the matter with you. As far as I was aware, John had shown no previous interest in that article and so I assumed he'd be neutral in his view of it. But I didn't take kindly to the comments you made about me "hiding behind Admins" or of your suggestion "Give it up and grow your own backbone." I also found it a little frustrating that you simply closed down my discussion on your own Talk page (where, incidentally, you branded me "a troll") with a hat box saying "The following discussion is archived ... Please do not modify it." And by the way, you've still not answered my question about how those six other "good" sources actually supported the material you added to the Tim Loughton article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Any discussions regarding the Tim Loughton page can be directed there. I am not prepared to allow for this discussion to be de-railed from the issues surrounding the actions of John and his actions, along with the tangential actions of Martinevans123. The actions taken by me have been raked over and it is not worth going over again, the block has drawn a line under that. I also believe that the point made by Martinevans123, regarding

I certainly will dispute that any message by me to you at Talk:Tim Loughton was "a threat pure and simple" or was in any way intended to be "WP:canvass."

Was not on the Tim Loughton page but was on my talk page, as was shown by the diff provided. This shows that Matrtinevans123 has not read the discussion posted in full or looked at the diffs provided in detail. Sport and politics (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sincere apologies. I've just adjusted my comment above to read "at Talk:Tim Loughton or anywhere else". I hope that's clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The actions taken by me have been raked over and it is not worth going over again, the block has drawn a line under that". The actions on all sides have been raked over and it's not worth going over any of it again. As can be seen from the long thread above there isn't a consensus for action to be taken against John and the last !vote was to close the thread. Time to drop the stick and find something better to do. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Fact Check The block-worthy behavior is evident starting at [66] and continuing on this ANI complaint. Routine DS template, self-explanatory. Minimal wake-up block. Nothing to see here. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  If the "routine DS template" has been found wanting, then some effort needs to be put into making it more readily comprehensible to the average editor. MPS1992 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

MPS1992 make an excellent point, there is need for reform of the "mandatory notice", and this should be carried out on a separate thread. Sport and politics (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not surprised one iota to see the users that are calling to close this thread down, as the ones doing so. I was expecting them to be the ones to do so. I firmly believe John and the ancillary actions associated from other user need to be looked at. I urge the community to dismiss the calls to close this discussion from the expected suspects, and look at the issues at hand, in particular relating to Johns actions on this matter. I urge the flailing f the users asking for closure of this thread to be ignored, as it is all smoke to stop the issues being discussed, as shown by SPECIFICO and their response claiming "fact check". I urge the community to look beyond these users, and look at the issues. Multiple users have come here independently to state there are issues at the very least with John, if not the other users calling for this tread to be closed. Sport and politics (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you now suggesting that there are "ancillary actions associated" with me that "need to be looked at?" If so could you please tell us what they are? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So everyone who disagrees with you should be ignored? Yep: that's exactly how this place works! SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So you seem. Misrepresenting others' comments would certainly give other editors cause for concern. MPS1992 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I have made clear my concerns regarding potential canvassing. You are aware of these having responded to them earlier in this thread. Sport and politics (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then I think I've wasted enough time with what was, to start with, a totally trivial matter. Expecting any kind of compromise or agreement with you seems to be expecting too much. I wish the other parties in the dispute good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's just remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, collaboratively. You may be upset by other people disagreeing with you, but please try to keep it under control. MPS1992 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Plutophane - fake userpage, signing post with false date

User:Plutophane's first edit was on August 17th to create a userpage dated June 25 2007 with a list of varous qualifications and a confirmed identity. Today they edited a talk page[67] and dated it October 10th. The userpage is copied from User:Plutophanes who hasn't edited since 2016. It's possible that they are the same person, but the fake date added today to a talk page is worrying, and the fact that the original userpage was lasted edited on 2010 and is identical to the one the new account added in August, including current activities, is pretty conclusive evidence that they are not. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I dunno. User:Plutophanes (with s) didn't make many edits, and his (or conceivably her) very first one was this: creation of a user page bristling with qualifications. -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hoary: I'm not sure I believe all of those either. However, 7 years ago that page said "I am currently a Guest Student studying Psycholinguistics at Philipps-Universität Marburg toward my studies of Autism Spectrum Disorders." And today the new page says the same thing. And he is still an associate analyst at this Canadian company. 7 years is a long time to not get promoted and to still be a "guest student", although I presume that means he just has permission to audit classes. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you think the user page is still current. If Plutophanes last edited their userpage in 2010 and last edited in 2016 that means the user page was already very outdated when they last edited. Plenty of people do not keep their user pages updated. I'm assuming this part at least comes as no surprise to you? If an editor loses access to their account, or simply abandons it for some reason, I don't think it's particularly uncommon for them to simply copy over their old userpage, no matter how outdated it is. The act of copying the page may trigger the impulse to update the page but it may not. I mean the userpage itself is effectively signed 2007 as you yourself said. I agree that the apparently fake date in the talk page comment is concerning, but I'm not seeing strong evidence here that the editor either is or isn't the original Plutophanes. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed [68]. I wouldn't be completely surprised if the person who wrote the above is the same person as the one who wrote the linked comment. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I don't think the user page is still current, but I still think it's odd that they added material to the new page that obviously isn't. Looking again at the contributions, there is a slight overlap, one commenting at Graham Hancock's talk page, the other editing at Fringe science. I've concluded that there really is nothing to do here now. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat by 24.69.184.154

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

---

• 24.69.184.154

Please see [69]. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, will investigate the article per WP:DOLT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, it seems like the article Christopher Shaw (neuroscientist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has negative content but it's all sourced and supported by the sources that look reliable. And the content looks pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I later noticed comments about previous such threats using other addresses on the article's talk page (in the WikiProject templates). It's unclear to me if those comments should be expanded/updated. —PaleoNeonate – 01:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I generally concur with this DOLT analysis. My only caveat would be that the near-complete focus on the subject's anti-vaxxer connections makes me wonder about WP:UNDUE. Not saying this is the case: I didn't look at any sources or anything to see if the subject does or is known for anything else, but the picture of the subject I get is of someone who primarily focuses on vaccines. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the comments point to User talk:2001:569:BD80:EA00:414D:2717:5572:B8CD and ticket:2017101910003572 and were added by @Josve05a:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The status of the ticket linked above is currently deferred to WMF legal. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the article and sources, the negative materiel was well sourced, but the exact same sources also mention other researchers, including those who had pointed out flaws in his studies, saying that the source of his funding was ok and that UBC defended his academic integrity, none of which was in the wikipedia article. It looked like info could have been cherry-picked from the sources to make him look dishonest, rather then just wrong. I think I fixed the neutrality issues in the vaccine section. But I don't understand why the lead says he mostly studies ALS but the whole rest of the article is about vaccines (and not about vaccines in relation to ALS), so either the lead is wrong, or the article gives undue weight to the vaccine studies. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I am guessing, the vaccine studies are his main claim to notability (perhaps with the exception of the white bread thing) and without them the article is essentially WP:CSD#A7 eligible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering about A7, this seems like it may be a case of recent news coverage of an otherwise non-notable person, who will not be notable after the news coverage fades. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

White bread? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

We could even attempt good faith AfD if that fails (and if that fails, notability will have been assessed by more eyes)... —PaleoNeonate – 17:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Tagged with A7 for now. —PaleoNeonate – 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed to PROD, seems like discussing, rather than speedy deletion, is a good idea. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Sausagelover99

• Sausagelover99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple copyright violations and inappropriate page creations (the talk page alone should show an interesting history). I sent a teahouse invitation hoping that the editor would request help there but no attempt so far. Appears to be a young boy. May be salvageable if encouraged to discuss. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 19:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: some material was copied from Wikia and apparently under an appropriate license. —PaleoNeonate – 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to communicate in non-template-ese terms. It looks like they are plagiarizing stuff indiscriminately so if that communication attempt doesn't work blocks will have to be tried. I notice that one page was created earlier by a sockpuppet but see no similarity in the edit patterns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment a NOTHERE block may be needed, but if an admin could remove auto-confirmed, that would prevent new page creation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  Admins cannot remove autoconfirmed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth: judging by the YouTube account he was trying to promote on his now-deleted userpage, the editor in question is just a kid. This is not me arguing against a block if it comes to that, just saying that some patience may be required. A Train^talk 21:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, —PaleoNeonate – 01:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Noting that Draft:Tomodachi Life 2 is copied from here and Draft:Yogi Bear 2 (2019 film) from here. They both need to be attributed at a minimum (the content is freely licensed but needs attribution). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

172.58.121.10

Wikipedia was recently the subject of a major attack of porn vandalism by 172.58.121.10 (blocked 60 hours), this is an LTA who adds porn, this has happened before from the same IP range. My question is whether a rangeblock is necessary, the last time I was told that the collateral was too high, is this still the case?

I have not notified the IP (WP:DENY, WP:IGNOREALLRULES). Also, none of the edits have been revdeled Tornado chaser (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a huge block (/11, 2097150 potential addresses), by large provider T-Mobile. It's possible that complaints at these coordinates with logs (the timestamps are important) could cause the subscriber to receive a complaint and/or get their service cut... —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Are wikipedia editors really supposed to try to get peoples internet service cut?? I thought we just block people from editing wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not that I know, although it's possible that there's a division of the WMF to decide and/or do it. —PaleoNeonate – 01:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

We're no different from any other consumer on the bad end of Internet misbehavior. A report can be made and the ISP does what it decides to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

We used to do this at WP:ABUSE when there was a particularly bad IP or group of IPs. My understanding is that it usually didn't accomplish much, and seemed to work best with smaller networks like secondary schools and small corporate offices, rather than ISPs themselves. Anyway, I just looked at what the IP that OP listed actually did, and I think it's pretty likely an edit filter could cover this. If there are more examples it might be more helpful. If there are specific images the vandal is using, it may be worth requesting their addition to MediaWiki:Bad image list. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I can say from experience that filters and the Bad image list are unlikely to be effective. These ranges are not as large as they look. T-Mobile users typically operate in one or two small-ish /23 ranges, so a range block is usually a possibility. Two data points are little insufficient for me to block, but if it returns drop me a note. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, none of the porn has been revdeled yet. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the revisions, thank you. Alex Shih^Talk 15:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije:@Black Kite:@Zzuuzz: I agree with not rangeblocking for 2 instances, but I should point out that in August, when I caught 172.58.136.31 adding porn, Vanjagenije told me this is a known IP hopper who adds porn. Does anyone know what other IPs this vandal has used? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

List of IPs

• 172.58.121.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) geolocates to Chicago, added a pornographic photo to 2 articals, my talk page (after I reverted them) and their talk page . Tornado chaser (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• 172.58.136.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) geolocates to Chicago, added a pornographic photo to many articles and then their talk page in addition to 2 edit that were conventional text vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a load of IPs on my talk page, about half-way down. The previous blocks were 172.58.136.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 172.56.13.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The two latest IPs (w/ 172.58.121.92) are the only ones I've seen recently. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If a long-term rangeblock is not feasible, what about an edit filter programmed to disallow any addition of an image by a 172.5X.XXX.XX IP from Chicago? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Simply put 1) We don't have built-in geolocation. 2) That's a lot of edits 3) They also use accounts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:TE violations by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat

JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat is persistently disrupting the article Antares, and is deliberately avoiding WP:BRD, WP:Consensus and has now moved into WP:TE. Despite multiple warnings on their User talk:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat page and attempting to get consensus by Lithopsian and Arianewiki1, JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat persists to make repeated nonconstructive and disruptive edits.

• Current recent repeated edits include : [70][71][72][73][74]

• Similar past edits include [75][76][77]

• Origin of the persistence of installing this edit is seen in the added Note by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat since 12 September 2017 by [78]. They then try and validate this with arguments like this [79], when in fact, they had already added the alleged false cited text themselves! Clearly evidence of both WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. (Worst in reply, they stated to me "Are you even blind?"[80], then go off on another tangent claiming yet another source.[81]

This is very clear evidence of WP:TE - Tendentious editing. Their current active sandbox[82] is seemingly pushing WP:OR exclusively to this narrow subject and promoting themselves as an expert.

The problems has been openly explained thoroughly here [83] and discussion here [84], lastly here[85] or as seen many times in the edit comments. JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat just ignores all of it, and just adds another dubious source or states numbers with further unfounded or wrong assumptions. e.g. With justifications like.[86]

Other past editors have tried to engage with the problems with the size of this star before [87], explaining similar logic and reasoning, so it it not new.

Furthermore, similar recent disruptive star edits include R Apodis[88], UU Aurigae [89] (saying "remove uncited data") or even VV Cephei [90] with disruptive uncited edits like this.[91] or [92]

They also have been involved with a recent WP:3RR investigation[93] with ZaperaWiki44 as explained here.[94], caused the page List of largest stars to need by Primefac page protection under WP:PREFER and has required administration access only. [95]. Just looking at the Revision history of List of largest stars[96] shows the extent of the need for protection. (This action is about to expire.)

It does appear that this editor has several disruptive issues which have not been able to be resolved. Even after repeated warnings, guidance, they continue poor behaviour and persist in their unwise editing practices. In this case, some form of WP:TBAN maybe wise, either for some the short or long-term especially on 'Sizes of stars', Antares or List of largest stars Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have opened a page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Space Infinite Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This editor is persisting with disruptive edits in List of largest stars[97][98][99], under which page protection WP:PREFER was required with administration access only[100], then recently lifted. The said "I promise that I will stop my disruptive editing." [101] and were (yet again) advised why their non-consensus edits are problematic. Some form of WP:TBAN is required, else this problem continues or even escalates. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Action is needed to prevent further disruptions.....we should not have to lockup a page multiple times because one editor is "not here. After looking at this account further......I see links on their userpage indictating they are14 years old....not that age matters to edit here. .....but.....competency may be a factor here...behavioral maturity and the knowledge needed to edit the topic may be the main problems. --Moxy (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Query @Arianewiki1: Did you post a notice to the user on his talk page? I just left him a note on my talk page in response to his request to unprotect List of largest stars.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies

• William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could someone please take a look at recent large edits, both additions and removals, made to William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (most by anonymous accounts)? This is not my area and I can't tell how legit the info is. The repeated phrase "restoring truth to power" in the edit summaries seems awfully biased, if not an indicator of vandalism. Thank you, and if this request should be posted elsewhere, please let me know. Jessicapierce (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. The IP is restoring material that has been removed twice recently by SPAs. The material is not obviously vandalism, but I can see why people would argue over it. Both sides need to take to talk, in my opinion. --John (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it's definitely a content dispute, but given the nature of the content it's one that raises BLP concerns. I'm not saying it's false or defamatory material, but it looks to focus on news coverage of a scandal or scandals. Our coverage of that coverage should be careful. As such, WP:BLPN might be a good place to bring this issue up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

User:特克斯特

• 特克斯特 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For quite some time user:特克斯特 is editing the "I am a singer" series of articles (and related articles). These articles are often poorly sourced or sourced with related sources. I am not entirely sure if this is a case of Conflict of Interest or that 特克斯特 just has no clue what he is doing here.

Especially this edit where he claims to know the results of the competition without it being broadcast or sourced, gives me the idea that he is operating on inside information.

I have multiple times requested him to explain if, and if so, how he is related to the show. No answer at all. An earlier block and discussion (I had asked administrator Drmies for advice), did not help at all.

A discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard was inconclusive about a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest but very clear about a massive lack of competence and understanding of the English language. For example, he is stating that the shows are judged by "500 audiences".

The shows are clearly notable, but in the present state are too bad to be a serious asset to the encyclopaedia. Improvement is difficult, due to the lack of understanding of 特克斯特 and my failure to be knowledgeable in the Chinese language. It is even more difficult, as 特克斯特 claims/claimed to follow the guidelines of ZH-wiki, what is of no value here. Due to his/her lack of competence and possibly a Conflict of Interest, the encyclopaedia should be protected in some way against this user. The Banner talk 10:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks almost like someone's using Google Translate or similar. These articles are bordering on incomprehensible, honestly. I'm not so sure about the COI question but there's definitely something wrong here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems that the problems are in the communication.特克斯特 (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• As the user's response indicates, there's all kinds of problems--from edit warring, lack of sourcing, violating MOS, lacking basic English skills. On top of that, they are arrogant and exhibit serious ownership issues. As Banner said, there's more at COIN. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I have looked at only a few of their edits, and all of them were problematic in terms of language and adding unsourced/speculative content. Here, for instance, they wrote about a contest that's being broadcast next year in the past tense, and also added unintelligible phrases such as "Thus, － is the last of this episode directly eliminated, regard scramble fail." And it looks like they don't even understand why sources are necessary in the article... A lack of competence in areas like language use combined with a lack of willingness to discuss their edits is never a good sign. --bonadea contributions talk 14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have dropped a note too. I will see if the user would be willing to communicate with me in Chinese. Alex Shih^Talk 14:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• I reported this user at AIV for removing an inline maintenance template after a level 4 warning, and the admin sent me here to complain. How about we just block this editor and be done with it? I think this community has made enough good-faith efforts to communicate and for naught. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• Please block. I've followed this at COIN and other than providing some levity, the whole interaction has been a complete waste of time. Complete lack of clue further demonstrated today in this edit summary : "if you want the source, you can ask me". ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• It seems, to me, that this particular user does not understand English. His refusal of communication is probably rather an incomprehension of whatever is going on here. In addition, I checked his page in Chinese wikipedia, he was also warned there for similar behaviors.----損齋 (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, well done. I was wondering if it was just a language issue or something else. If this editor is running afoul of policies on his or her native language variant of Wikipedia, then this becomes an easier case to resolve. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I am communicating with the user on Chinese Wikipedia after placing the indefinite block, and I've reached a similar conclusion. Alex Shih^Talk 16:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Katerina Kolozova

What can we do to improve it? It is not an autobiography, although my student did use my account as he doesn't have one. As you can see, there is very similar page in Macedonian dedicated to me years ago, and this one is an improvement. Yes, by my graduate student who knows me well, but this is not an autobiography and there is not biased praise. All information is ACCURATELY REFERENCED!15:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Kkolozova (talk)

Sorry, what is all this? Meatpuppetry? Sharing accounts? Conflicts of interest? Hello, Kkolozova, what's up? — fortunavelut luna 15:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think ANI is the place for this (and you don't need to place the notice here, don't worry!)- but before it gets closed, I have to say I have trimmed your article, Katerina Kolozova, of various bloat and cruft. If you want to promote your works and career, there are better places to do this. And regardless of whther you wrote it yourself, it does come under our policy regarding living people, which is rather strict, and requires serious referencing to support all claims made. The article fails to do so. Unfortunately- contrariwise to what you have suggested above- it is not ACCURATELY REFERENCED." — fortunavelut luna 15:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added a couple of secondary sources. — fortunavelut luna 16:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the ANI-notice template that OP unintentionally added to this post. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have stripped out all non-sourced information from the article as a violation of WP:PROMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but this user's admittance of allowing their 'student' to use their account counts as as a compromised account does it not? --Tarage (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Elminster

This is a weird situation that I have noticed. I don't even know it if is necessarily bad behavior, just strange. But if you look at the edit history of Elminster dating back to about February of this year, it seems like there have been a whole lot of accounts editing it, most of whose sole purpose seems to be to make one edit or two to the article and then stop. Many of the names of those SPAs are also very similar to each other. I have to think that they are all just one person making new accounts over and over. It doesn't seem like they are doing anything wrong per se, aside from linking to common terms. Is this anything worth reporting anywhere, or am I just being silly? (And yes, silly is an appropriate answer.) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It is weird, yes, and probably the same person or at least the same few people (considering some of the edits overwrite each other), but the edits themselves seem to be benign and not breaking any policy or anything. FWIW, the account names are all just standard fantasy fake names. ansh666 19:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Might be someone who thinks that you are supposed to make an account for every edit, just like with most airline tickets. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There are ones with more than one edit, and I saw at least one come back to make an edit after another account got used. It almost looks like they're being generated automatically. Recently there were a bunch ending in "(vowel)th". Some of the others are very similar. But I agree, it just looks creepy right now. If there's something nefarious happening, unless someone else has seen this before and knows what the game is, we'll have to wait and see. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the timestamps and the nature of most of the edits, it looks rather botlike. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Many of the early user names are anagrams of ethanol, so perhaps its some kind of drinking game for bots or botlike wordgamers. :) 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

LOL, you guys are killin' me. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Those usernames are all names of characters from the fictional setting of the article subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

BoundaryLayer

I'm posting about an issue here in case anyone may want to check it out:

• Boundarylayer posted at WP:FTN about a content dispute at Death of Savita Halappanavar.
• When I checked it out, I noticed this edit, which I reverted as a purely personal attack.
• I then posted a 4im warning about personal attacks on BoundaryLayer's talk page.
• I decided to look at some of his other recent edits, and wound up reverting something unrelated over a sourcing issue (it's since been put back; I'm not overly concerned with this one)
• BoundaryLayer has now accused me of hounding and other nefarious activity and issued me a custom-ish warning on my talk page with these 2 (unsigned) edits: [102], and [103]

Thanks. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, calling another editor "schizophrenic" and making personal attacks claiming the other editor has a psychiatric disorder is bad news. Your last two diffs made me think that BoundaryLayer was a new or inexperienced editor (fake template warnings being something that I've seen new editors do on occasion), but I note that BL has been around for over seven years and has over 5000 edits. Looks like there's also an old SPI on BoundaryLayer, and quite a few warnings and disputes spanning the last five years. I'm not terribly concerned about the warning on your user talk, Deacon; it looks pretty blatantly bogus. But we can't have the personal attacks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis is as expected, failing to show context. This oh-so (dasterdly) edit of mine when looked at in isolation and which they reverted, is in fact, clearly an accurate retort & appraisal to the directly preceding and absolutely off-the-wall comments made by 2 editors [104] who are babbling about "lizards within the center of the earth". Amongst other things like failing to recognize the seniority of WP:RSMED over WP:RS, these editors are engaged in politically slanted cheerleading on wikipedia and are engaged in an effort to make a Reductio ad absurdum out of the fact that I pointed out their obvious political bias/spin-doctoring as a result of how they spun a negative headline, as a positive.

Though strangely, Deacon Vorbis did not feel it relevant to communicate any of this context to you? Why would they not think this relevent? Is it really a personal attack to call a comedic spin-doctor, who is babbling about lizards, a schizo? Seems pretty measured to me.

• Moreover why would Deacon Vorbis then go hounding into my edit history or as they put it, just innocently "wound up" removing a reference penned by [Barry Brooks Ph.D]? If they weren't engaged in Hounding, then why revert? |Why remove this encyclopedia building edit of mine? Though of course now Deacon Vorbis is "not overly concerned with this one"...Of course they're not, they recognise that they're hounding and they're now trying to save face. As we're all really reassured that you're not "overly concerned" with references written by Ph.Ds. Really nicely reassured?

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• With respect to the PA, it's a PA because the statement was used to attack the other editor. Regardless of whether it was serious or sarcastic, it's inappropriate to call another editor schizophrenic as an insult. That the other editors were being facetious doesn't really excuse it. As to the content dispute aspect of your response, honestly, I don't think it's relevant, particularly given this is ANI. We don't do content disputes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Though how exactly is it an "attack" or an "insult", when the other editor is intentionally babbling about "lizards in the center of the earth" in order to derail the talk page into absurdity? Listen, I like describing things and talk of "lizards in the center of earth" is schizo and inappropriate for wikipedia. So this is quite literally farcical. Just stop for a second and take in the fact that - we're on an admin board over how 2 editors used the tactic of reductio ad-absurdum when their political leanings were pointed out. Their strategy to divert attention away from their political advocacy, has really worked a slick treat, hasn't it?

What this noticeboard would be greenlighting in troublingly deeming this a PA, is that the Chewbacca defense works here. Specifically, if you Babble about lizards => get called a schizo => feign being attacked with crocodile tears, you get to punish the bad "insulting" man. Is this really the precedent you want to start setting?

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

When you call another editor a schizophrenic and tell him that he needs to go seek psychiatric help, you're commenting on the person rather than the merits of the dispute you're in. Even if you were the recipient of personal attacks yourself, your statement would be sanctionable. And honestly, this isn't setting any precedent: This is straightforward application of longstanding Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. Do not attack other editors. Comment on the content, not the contributor. You've been here for seven years. You should know better by now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you actually being serious? "Comment on the content, not the contributor". The content is intentionally schizophrenic. It's after all, the Chewbacca defense for heavens sake. Anyone that uses it, throws out any-and-all expectancy of courtesy as it is quite literally schizophrenic and those who deploy it, are well aware of that fact. So again, how is it an insult or attack to call someone who is facetiously engaged in turning a discussion into a farce - a schizo who needs help?

Secondly, if you must stick to the letter of the PC laws, & to prevent this from truly becoming a precedent of absolutely farcical proportions. You have acknowledged that "even if you were [1st] the recipient of personal attacks yourself". Yet where are their "sanctionable" ANI discussions? No where. So should not the 2 other editors similarly receive "sanctionable" treatment? After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm actually being serious. You called the person a schizophrenic and told him to seek psychiatric help. That's inappropriate. As to whether the other editors merit sanctions, I haven't looked into that. What I saw at a glance didn't look like a personal attack; it just looked facetious. Not the best behavior but I don't think it's disruptive enough to be sanctionable. Using "schizophrenic" as a pejorative is not only a personal attack, but it is arguably demeaning to people who actually suffer from schizophrenia. This is Wikipedia, it is not 4chan. You can't just go around using a disability as a slur. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are actually being dead serious, then I hope you realize just how farcical your whole spiel is. For one, schizophrenic is not a pejorative nor is suggesting someone go get help, it is a precisely accurate appraisal and reply to someone waffling about "lizards within the center of the earth" and what they need. For two, you can take your crocodile tears about schizophrenics back to 4chan, a place I didn't even know existed until now. You can take your whole fantasy filled yarn of "PA, demeaning to schizophrenics etc" there, as that is truly the Troll place for it, because if you actually knew a single genuine schizophrenic, you'd be well aware that people being 2-faced and timid about pointing out crazy behavior, is actually one of the primary things that ticks them off. A spade is a spade, regardless of if it has feelings and believes it is a butterfly. So in no uncertain terms, I find your entire standpoint as farcically empty of learning as it is trying to be laughably "well intentioned".

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This is like calling someone a "retard" in an online argument and then arguing that it's not offensive because you genuinely believe the person you called a "retard" to suffer from a learning disability, and that it was therefore an accurate assessment. You used the term as a pejorative and deserve censure for it. But even if you had not, it is highly inappropriate to speculate about another editor having a psychiatric disorder, and you would merit censure for that. Far more serious is your refusal to acknowledge and take ownership of your improper conduct. I urge you to rethink your position while you are still permitted to edit here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv thanks for reminding everyone of the conspiratorial Sockpuppet charges dreamt up by an opposing "editor" in 2012, who was caught copy-pasting material from anti-nuclear pamplets in Australia and wanted to similarly divert attention away from their actions, so surprise-suprise, they started that farcical "investigation". Thanks for reminding us of them. It's really always a great reminder that the admin-board is frequently used by opponents with political agendas. Reminds me of the type of "editors" I oh-so frequently have the displeasure of dealing with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs)

But two socks were blocked as a result of that investigation. Are you suggesting that these weren't yours? --John (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh funny it's John in here all of a sudden, But 2 socks weren't blocked as a result of that investigation and you know it. All that investigation revealed was that particular anti-nuclear copy-pasters will do anything to try and revert attention away from their own conduct. Instead, what you are referring to is, the later events following the similarly farcical charge that I was allegedly a big-time trans-atlantic lawyer, a story which I do love to retell. At which point a particular admin, that's you if I'm not mistaken? Funny coincidence there. You in particular tried to frame a narrative of he's a "lawyer ba ZOMGA"! Which resulted in a permanent ban. To correct this madness I then had to create the intentionally obvious sock of "Boundarylayerlives" to ask on a talk page, what in the hell is going on...though you are obviously facetiously aware of all thism as soon it resulted in my account being reinstated and correct me if I'm wrong but your "permanent ban" was deemed somewhat of an abuse of power? If I'm not mistaken. Perhaps also would be this pretty coy attempt to raise it again?

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I had forgotten that I blocked you for making legal threats five years ago, and it seems like you have forgotten what happened too. It's still on your talk page, have a look. You accused another editor of "libel" and I blocked you under WP:NLT. You were unblocked when you promised not to do it again. I don't think any abuse of power was suggested; if it was it isn't evident on your talk page. And here we are five years later and you're defending calling another editor "schizophrenic". Any reason you shouldn't just be blocked again? --John (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I was honestly on the verge of proposing an indef anyway. Boundarylayer looks to have been attacking people in virtually every dispute he's been in. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No I actually did not accuse another editor of "libel". If you indeed have a look at my talk page. Another editor pointed all that out. Where did the blocking admin seek to clarify the issue before blocking as mentioned at WP:NLT to make certain it was an actual legal threat? Considering Johns very strong criticism of Boundarylayers editing [105] etc, the block should never have been made by him. He is clearly involved. User:IRWolfie User talk:IRWolfie-|talk 08:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This makes it more than twice now that you have been "involved" in an effort to WP:HOUND, in breach of the rules. Any reason why you shouldn't be reprimanded for this, again?

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the facts that it isn't true and concerns your misbehaviour from five years ago you mean? You said at the time (using your acknowledged sock account) I was a bit bewildered at the initial ban and so I had to look through my edits to see where I had made the legal threats, having found what I think is the offending section. I think it a bit extreme but would obviously re-word False and libel to simply false and misleading if given the opportunity to do so. As jpgordon mentioned I didn't know the rule against using the word libel, and I didn't intend, nor do I intend, any legal action. So were you mistaken then or are you mistaken now? --John (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm unfortunately convinced that most people refused to read the whole noticeboard (or talk page) rants further than a few paragraphs. I would recommend writing concise and short posts in the future to make communication feasible. Even if completely reading a wall of text, it remains unclear what the main concern is in the haystack. —PaleoNeonate – 02:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

User talk:PaleoNeonate, your comments don't really seem relevant to this noticeboard? Though for the sake of completeness, or to "rant" as you courteously put it & clear out the whole hayshed for you, the FTN noticeboard, to boil it down, is simply a case of WP:RSMEDs superseding WP:RS. On that point, please give your 2 cents on the talk page.

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I meant the walls of text at Wikipedia:FTN#Death of Savita Halappanavar and Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar#What pro choice orgs knew before story breaking, to be precise. About the invitation to fully read them and participate, sorry, no thanks. —PaleoNeonate – 04:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

[[User:PaleoNeonate...and I knew what you meant, so I boiled it down for you? To reiterate. It's a simple case of WP:RSMEDs superseding WP:RS, now if you genuinely do not have the time to devout yourself to improving the encyclopedia by giving your 2 cents about that very narrow topic, seemingly prefering instead to write 2 off-topic paragraphs here about how you "don't want to be involved, honestly, don't want to be involved", "walls of text" etc. Then you don't have to keep saying that, we believe you. That's your decision. Best of luck with your future editing priorities.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I recently posted a note about the issue at WT:MED, in case it could gather the attention of editors experienced in medicine topics. I'm sorry if the wall of text criticism was difficult to receive. —PaleoNeonate – 17:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not at all man, I didn't receive it harshly, I knew it was long so I am in the process of altering it for easier digestion.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boundarylayer: are you missing something important here? The important thing is, do you realize that your mention of schizophrenia was inappropriate, and do you apologize for making that comment and do you undertake not to behave like that in the future? MPS1992 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading you five by five big cheese.

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No? Bye then. MPS1992 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Since no one else seems willing (it being the weekend and all), I've blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Miniapolis 22:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

From the current unblock request: Secondly this block as it stands now is preventing me from responding to an ongoing noticeboard discussion of which I am a part. So it's pretty ill-timed. Or am I to understand, that is the whole point? Doubling down on the aspersions is not a great move. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment Seems to me this user is dead-set to push an agenda that seeks to skew an article in favor of their political position, and if that is to be done by beating people over the head with their intransigence, it seems that the user is set to do this. I would recommend not closing this in spite of the 31-hour block in order to see what the user's actions are after block expiration. I would hope a move on to other things (boundary layers, perhaps? We could use with a better article on that subject) would be done. jps (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm the person who BoundaryLayer called a schizophrenic. Yes I did make a joke response when BL claimed to know my politics. At that stage of the conversation, and now, I think BL is not a serious editor, at least in this topic, so they didn't deserve a serious reply. You can see the discussion on the talk page for all the falsehoods that BL was adding, repeating arguments from campaign groups on one side. BL made outlandish claims that might sound good ("There's no source in 2013 or later to back this up"), 10 minutes of searching produces ~10 counter examples. etc etc They are outright lying on this article, and continue to try to push their agenda with these long skreeds. ____Ebelular (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Erethendos

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

---

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

WP:NOTHERE and was stale-archived from AIV. Unsourced tendentious editing (ethnicity/language pseudohistory related), trolling and personal attacks when reverted (see editor's talk page), admin talk page harrassment (Oshwah's). Possibly LTA sock/evasion, I'll let others determine. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• comment feels like one of Oshwah's many sock-evading "fans". The edits are not particularly productive, and my gut reaction is to block the sock, but I don't know which of Oshwah's many "admirers" it is. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not know if this person is a sock, but I do know ethnic/religious harassment and disruptive editing when I see it, so I have blocked the editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Did you intend to block this editor for only 31h? General Ization ^Talk 14:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

General Ization, I blocked for 31 hours expecting one of two things to happen: Idealistically, I hoped that the editor would cease to their disruption following my warning, or I thought that a sockpuppet investigation would come back positive, resulting in an indefinite block. The second thing happened. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: the account was discovered to be a sock and indefinitely blocked. Thanks for the help everyone, —PaleoNeonate – 15:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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

BrightR

• Tulpa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:BrightR doesn't want to resolve a dispute in a peaceful way. Every time a consensus is attempted, they just roll back the edits, without any proper discussion done. In their rollbacks they apply the tactic of rolling back everything to the latest revision they find acceptable, ignoring any feedback.

While some of their rollbacks might be correct, they do not want to discuss anything, rolling back attempts to remove unverified sources, grammatical and spelling errors. A few attempts were made to discuss this with a third editor, and the issue was escalated to DRN. The user ignored the rules set by mediator and rolled everything back again without any discussion made.

The ignorance and abuse user shows is in clear violation of the Wikipedia:Five pillars#WP:5P4, addressed towards several other editors, at his point. Farcaller (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm this. I recently became interested in editing the article in question, and had all my edits reverted without explanation. They constantly argue that sources are illegitimate when they aren't, and raise WP:fringe concerns that don't exist. Even going so far as to start a dispute resolution process to prove all us other editors wrong, then declare the process failed when things don't go according to plan. Tulpabug (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi fellas! When making AN/I complaints, it is customary to provide diffs! Let's provide some!

• The dispute started over what I considered POV edits, spending a paragraph emphasizing tulpa practitioners' POV, giving it undue weight.
• A third opinion agreed it was undue weight.

Three (or four?) more editors joined in, adding frivolous sources and using weasel-words to make claims that are not attributable to the provided source:

• Using an undergrad paper published in a predatory journal as a source (see "Uncertain that the journal's predatory" for predatory journal info)
• Presenting an internet survey about the social composition of tulpa practitioner communities as A study on the subject of tulpas conducted in 2015 classified them as "imaginary companions who are said to have achieved full sentience after being conjured through ‘thought-form’ meditative practice". This unattributed claim is indeed quoted verbatim from the survey, however it's still unattributed and, more importantly, the survey itself is not a scientific study on the "classification" of tulpas, it's a survey of the population of some online communities, nor is the quoted material a classification or conclusion made by the study. It's simply an unattributed claim in the introduction.
• Synthesis (read more on Wakefield section)
• Using social media references for original research purposes.

And that doesn't even take into account trying to pass off a work of fiction as a non-fiction autobiography. At first I assumed good faith, but as more and more frivolous edits accumulated, it became clear that there's POV-pushing going on here. Mistaking a work of fiction for non-fiction? Could happen... Using a social network as a reference? Let's link to WP:PRIMARY and move on. Referencing a paper by an undergrad in a predatory journal? Oh well, mistakes happen... Synthesis? Let's link to WP:SYNTHESIS now... Are we done yet? No? Using weasel words to incorporate unattributed information from an online survey, and skew a paragraph or two towards the tulpa practitioners' POV? Not going to assume good faith any more, this is POV-pushing. Bright☀ 19:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

And, specifically addressing Tulpabug's complaints (for which they didn't provide diffs!), the dispute resolution failed because, while it was still going on, the editors reintroduced the references to social media and misattributed claims with weasel words. From the closing comment:

Closed as failed. Participation here is voluntary, and if an editor says that it has failed, it has failed. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Do not use unreliable sources such as Reddit and blogs. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, the editors may make one more try at compromise via a request for formal moderation with a more experienced moderator, or may bring any specific issue to the reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI or the edit-warring noticeboard, but that will eliminate any possibility of friendly or neutral resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that the closer specifically asked not to use social media as sources. When using them as sources failed, one of the editors decided to add them as external links instead. This might be a good place to note that external links are excluded by default, and that the article had issues before with repeated attempts to insert external links to tulpa websites... Bright☀ 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

As an added bonus, I'm being told there's consensus to add external links a few seconds after removing them and asking for consensus to be formed... all the while a POV dispute relating to these very links is going on and even being discussed on AN/I. Bright☀ 19:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Almost forgot! I was accused of "shaming a murder victim" because I wrote Must be hard to review "scientific" papers posthumously. Bright☀ 19:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

On prompting by BrightR, I went to the history page only to find the diffs buried behind another literal massive edit war with a fourth editor. There are so many revisions. Edit: format error, sorry. Tulpabug (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Farcaller and Tulpabug, you need to provide WP:DIFFs to prove your assertions. otherwise this ANI report is going nowhere. You haven't even linked or even named the article(s) in question. Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, got sidetracked. I've never done this before. Lots of reading. I'm not the primary editor in this dispute, so I am not familiar with the vast history of POV conflict being engaged here. This: [106]] is the one which took out all my edits, and also several discreet edits by Farcaller. The edit reason is also offensive. article: Tulpa Tulpabug (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to some of what BrightR wrote, as it was presented out of order. First, The moderator of the dispute resolution told us to edit the article. He made a special exemption, saying we should edit boldly, to fix the deficiencies in the article. But explicitly forbade pure reverts. Second, we did so, believing that we were told to do so. Third BrightR did a pure revert, with a rude edit message. Fourth, BrightR declared the dispute resolution a failure. Fifth, the dispute resolution was closed. Tulpabug (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a DRN case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references to reddit and social networks which was closed by the moderator as Failed at 16:25 on 22 October. Since that time it appears that User:Seteleechete has been edit warring to add an external link to reddit.com and a link to tulpa.io. It may be time to apply full protection to Tulpa, since people are not waiting for consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The moderator suggested bold editing, to which I responded This will bias the edits completely in the direction of unreliable sources. The mediation has failed. Same when one mediator suggested incorporating the social media sites in external links; consensus should be formed on whether the external links should be added. A suggestion is not the same as a blanket approval, just like not disqualifying a source by WP:PRIMARY doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion in the article. As for the edit reason being "offensive", it's in bad faith to incorporate disputed material in the middle of a dispute. Stop and wait for a resolution. Bright☀ 08:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I seriously advise you to read things more carefully. Why can't you just follow the rules? The article is being choked to death. I wish everyone would just take a break. Tulpabug (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted synthesis, original research, claims sourced to predatory journals and social media, and POV-pushing. I discuss and cite the relevant policies. Then I get accused that I "never commented on" those changes or that I'm "shaming a murder victim"; the person who added a work of fiction as a biography is accusing me of removing material "without making any proper research themselves"... An IP-address-editor claiming to be you tried to justify using an undergrad paper published in a predatory journal. Seems like I'm playing whack-a-mole; whenever one frivolous source is removed, another is added. When one policy is explained, another is tested. Bright☀ 09:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

My concern rises up from the following issue: the user in question tends to rollback edits disregarding any reasoning on them. E.g. this edit rolled back the change to the first paragraph, that BrightR commented on as being unfit, but also, rolled back other edits that BrightR never comments on: this edit by Tulpabug (no comment was ever given), this edit by myself (previously removed by BrightR as irrelevant, after their editing removed the actual citation), this edit by myself (after thorough discussion in the Talk page and quoting the exact parts of the cited article to show it's irrelevant, and bringing this issue up to DRN, BrightR keeps reverting this edit with no comments), this edit by Tulpabug (again, never commented on). It is impossible to discuss anything with said user as they choose to reply to only those parts of the statements they like, if though I made specific attempt to raise these issues in dedicated sections of talk page.

Another example of blanket rollback can be seen here, including statements coming from a research paper, typographical fixes.

My overall concern with this user is that while they are fast to blame other editors (including myself) in the POV-pushing, their actions fall under the exact same concern. All the recent reverts were done without any proper discussion done in the talk page, and were pushing the article back to the state which they only find acceptable; rolling back not only attempts to add new content (which is discussable), but rolling back existing statements that do not belong to the article, without making any proper research themselves. Farcaller (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There were reasons given, and the talk page is littered with them:

• Wakefield was removed because of WP:SYNTHESIS, see talk page. Seems incredibly in-bad-faith to claim I "never commented on" that.
• Dalai Lama was also discussed on the talk page, you sure I "never commented on" it? You were part of both discussions; the information is sourced, but, as I said in the talk page you take the words sprul-pa and tulku, which three sources in the article say were translated into "tulpa", and you refuse to acknowledge this. Note that the synthesis isn't done by me, it's by a reliable source cited in the article.
• Moving on, this is unsourced information. See "Original research and POV". Just because that particular piece of unsourced information was never discussed doesn't mean it's inappropriate to remove it. In fact it's the opposite; it's inappropriate to include it. The rest of the edit was exactly the kind of POV that's under discussion, and you should wait for the discussion to conclude.
• Isler is not a reliable source. Discussed on the talk page again and again. It's a paper by an undergrad published in a predatory journal.

So what are we left with? "blanket rollback" of "typographical fixes" that were reverted in the course of removing the Isler paper? I apologize your typographical fixes were removed, however did you notice the large amount of discussion about each and every revert? Your claim that I rollback edits disregarding any reasoning seems to be in very bad faith. Continuing to pursue these changes while they're under discussion is a huge problem. Bright☀ 09:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, the issue is not that they weren't discussed. The issue is that the discussions were post-hoc, which is in violation of general guidelines, and you are actively barring us from reimplementing changes to the article that you are unable to give sufficient reason for excluding within those discussions. One editor against several, and somehow the one is getting control of how the article looks and stays. That's the definition of disruptive editing. Tulpabug (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, the issue is not that they weren't discussed don't speak for Farcaller, he just said "All the recent reverts were done without any proper discussion done in the talk page." The issue is that the discussions were post-hoc That cuts both ways. You are suggesting that you should have discussed the changes before implementing them. In that case, see WP:BURDEN, the onus for consensus is on including disputed content. you are unable to give sufficient reason For which one? The Isler source? The synthesis? The Dalai Lama? The POV which was agreed on by a third party? The "typographical fixes" which are extremely minor and irrelevant to this discussion? One editor against several - see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Just because the three (four?) of you agree that the Isler paper is fine and dandy, doesn't mean your consensus overrides Wikipedia policy. Additionally no such consensus was reached because you were quick to make bold edits while the mediation process was still going on! Same with the external links, as soon as someone merely suggested they're okay, someone else claimed consensus and pushed them back in the article.

If you want consensus, please wait for the consensus process to be over, before making further changes to the article. Bright☀ 10:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why the content is disputed. I removed disputed content with the edit you used as an example because it is a controversial claim considered offensive by some and I couldn't keep staring at it in the introductory paragraph. I replaced the controversial claim with a more generic statement. This generic statement contained no controversial claims at all, consisting of generally known facts about the tulpamancy community. I was rather careful to include no extraordinary claims at all. So you removed no disputed content when you did that revert. I can cite all sorts of documents that support the claims made there, because practically all of them state the same thing. Trigger happy editing kills articles. You should have added a citation needed tag if you thought the statement needed support. (edit: oops forgot signature) Tulpabug (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Finally we are getting to specifics. I take it you mean this edit? (Please supply diffs so I can know exactly what you're talking about.) The claim Parallels can be found in the related concepts of spirit possession and multiplicity (psychology) is original research; the other information is exactly the disputed POV information which was removed previously from further down the article. Both were removed, discussed, and before any consensus could be formed you reintroduced them, worded slightly differently. Local consensus cannot "validate" the quoted original research. Broader consensus might suggest the rest is not undue weight, but for the time being, in the middle of a POV/undue-weight dispute, it's in bad faith to restore disputed material. Bright☀ 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated, but I do agree with the original research. The tulpa phenomenon shares much with automatic writing or spirit possession, but this cannot be incorporated into the article without a reliable source. Bright☀ 11:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You are very hard to argue with. I give you credit, you are a good debater. I was worried about that part, yes. Those are generally accepted claims, but not in most of the sources. I take it back. The earlier sentences were the ones I was confident about. As to the earlier sentences, are you seriously saying that you believe that modern tulpamancers have not formed an internet subculture, the concept has not evolved considerably over time, and that modern practitioners tend to spiritual interpretations of the phenomenon?

Anyhow, I know how the administrators like rules. So I'll just list a blatant rules violation:

"19:29, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,625 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Undid revision 806551313",

"19:25, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,625 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Undid revision 806550859",

"18:43, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,625 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Undid revision 806536404",

"10:26, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,536 bytes) (-3,343)‎ . . (reverting bad faith edits."

This fall foul of the three reverts rule. Tulpabug (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

are you seriously saying that you believe No. I'm saying that the article is in a POV dispute and making bold edits while the issue is being discussed is in bad faith, the same way it's bad faith for reporting me for WP:3RR for reverting the bold edits that were made during the dispute resolution process. Bright☀ 13:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

What. WP:AssumeGoodFaith Tulpabug (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I did. You can see that Farcaller and I were getting along fine despite his unusual edits like treating a work of fiction as non-fiction and using reddit.com and tulpa.io for their original research (twice). After these misapplications and misrepresentations of references, Seteleechete expanded the article in a way that I thought was WP:UNDUE. A third opinion agreed that it's undue weight. After that, when the POV editing and bad-source referencing continued—in particular, CliffracerX and yourself saying I'm "shaming a murder victim" and arguing for the Isler paper despite links showing that the journal is predatory (and Isler being an undergrad); Farcaller introducing their own synthesis; the reintroduction of the POV that was recently found by the third opinion to be WP:UNDUE; and the use of weasel words—I sought mediation, and while both sides were participating in mediation, you and Farcaller reintroduced the bold edits; it's considered in bad faith to restore disputed content while dispute resolution is in progress. Were these all innocent mistakes and misunderstandings? I don't think so. Bright☀ 06:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It also appears that Farcaller's edits were reverted for using self-published sources and social media posts as a reference even before I explained to them that such self-published works cannot be used as a source for those claims. So Farcaller used self-published sources, were reverted by Jeraphine Gryphon with "needs more legit sources", "self-published book", "WP:OR"; Farcaller used self-published sources again, they were reverted and had the issue explained to them in the talk page; Farcaller used self-published sources again, and restored their synthesis, while dispute resolution was in progress. Hardly good-faith edits.

Regardless, I didn't think any of that merits a discussion on AN/I. When mediation failed, I suggested reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard, because the issue is of reliable sources and undue weight:

• The reddit tulpa sex survey cannot be used as a source
• The reddit tulpa FAQ or tulpa.io FAQ cannot be used as a source
• Isler cannot be used as a source (undergrad paper published in predatory journal)
• Synthesis of several sources cannot be used to make claims that do not appear in the sources
• Weasel words cannot be used to attribute unsourced statements from Veissière's study to the study itself, nor present them as conclusions or assertions made by the study
• Examples in popular culture need sources that discuss why that particular example is important
• Obviously, a work of fiction cannot be referenced as non-fiction
• The article in its current state cannot emphasize any further the tulpa practitioners' view on tulpas. When the article is expanded with more reliable sources, the POV of tulpa practitioners can be expanded upon.

That last point should be discussed on the NPOV noticeboard; the other points really don't need to be discussed, but could, on the RS noticeboard.

Outside of that, there's a dispute on the proper translation of "tulpa" and a wish to split the article on that basis, as well as the removal of reliable sources that connect the concepts in order to support the split. From Mikles, which is cited in the article: Nawang Thokmey, archivist for the University of Virginia Tibetan manuscript collection, elaborated on the equivalence of sprul pa and sprul sku, confirming that both words indicate an enlightened being’s manifestation. While the modern usage of "tulpa" is distinct from the Buddhist usage, in the Buddhist usage there is no distinction between "tulku", "sprul pa", or "nirmanakaya" and they are more or less interchangeable. There are other sources that equivocate those terms with the phrase "emenation body", all of which were translated as "tulpa" by theosophists. The Wikipedia article does not claim that the Dalai Lama is a tulpa in the modern sense, only in the Buddhist sense, and the word "tulpa" was removed at Farcaller's insistence despite being used in that context in a reliable source. It's true that "tulpa" is mostly used in the West while Buddhists use "sprul pa" or "tulku", but that is a semantic difference which is explained in the sources.

These disputes all lead to the same POV, and several of them lead to the reddit tulpa forum (sex survey, FAQ, Isler). The rush to reintroduce them, while the dispute resolution process is ongoing, is suspect. Bright☀ 08:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Repeated fair use violations

Giangkiefer (talk · contribs)

Back on the sixth I posted to Giangkiefer's talk page regarding all of their uploads being copyright violations. They were uploaded as public domain images when they very clearly were not. Now, since they all fell under fair use I asked them to go back and fix their images so others don't have to clean up their mess. I left them the templates they needed to use as well to try to quicken the process (and to hopefully avoid the issue in the future). None of that occurred and they recently uploaded another image and placed it under public domain when it clearly isn't. I'm at a loss here. They don't seem to be getting it, they won't respond to their talk page, and now I'm afraid I need some administrative assistance in this matter. --Majora (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of using a block to get a user's attention. I wonder if we could come up with a smarter alternative. For example, a step that would allow the user to continue editing (as there are no allegations that the edits are problematic), but disallow uploads of images. That might get the user's attention, without the stain of a block record. (To Majora: Apologies I realize my suggestion does nothing to solve the problem you identified.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like 44 uploads since last August. Looks like Giangkiefer started using fair use tags for a couple uploads on the 8th, but has gone back to tagging as PD. And a bunch of the most recent ones are still improperly tagged as PD. I don't feel as bad about a block to get Giangkiefer's attention. The way I see it, Giangkiefer got a {{uw-copyright}} on the 5th, and got the more specific warning from Majora on the 8th, but kept it up despite that. I guess we could do a more concise final warning, like "If you upload another file with an improper license, you may be blocked without further notice." But... at some point we've gotta say enough is enough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a technical way to strip someone of their "upload" flag, although, there have been multiple times in the past when I wished there was. I'm really hoping that the post here gets some sort of response. If that is what it takes so be it. And no, their edits don't seem to be a problem. Just their uploads. And those would be fine if they just start doing them correctly. At this point it is just cleaning up after them that has become problematic. As for staining their block log, that ship sailed in February. --Majora (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Umm... WP:AUTOCONFIRM? GMG^talk 10:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Last I looked at a user management screen there isn't a way to technically strip someone of their autoconfirm flag. Edit filters can technically do so but that feature is not active on enwiki and automated removal of rights is a contentious topic that won't likely gain consensus. In any case, even if admins could remove autoconfirm, that level contains a lot more flags than just upload. Which is the main problem here. --Majora's Incarnation (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I just kindof figured you could remove it like any other right. And it would certainly have unintended consequences, like preventing the user from creating new articles, but would be preferable to a block and if implemented could be reinstated once the user... you know... learns how to use a talk page. Anyway, I suppose if it's not technically doable then no point talking about it much. GMG^talk 13:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Two options here, Final warning with an indef should another copyvio image be uploaded following said final warning; or a CBAN on uploading any images to en-Wiki, with an indef should it be ignored. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I would probably prefer a final warning and an indef pending an unblock request at least acknowledging that there is a problem here and how they intend to fix it. They appear to know how to use a talk page when it suits them, and they know how to use a fair use rationale. They're simply choosing not to, and that's not really okay. Plus a CBAN just seems like an unnecessary use of time, given that any uninvolved admin could have already imposed a block for repeated copyvio, and probably would have were it not for their otherwise productive contributions. GMG^talk 14:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Final warning works for me. @Mjroots: would you mind issuing it as an "official" admin action. Giangkiefer obviously doesn't want to participate in this thread as they have edited since it began. --Majora (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Final warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User RAF910

To the administrator, If you agree, could you please apply the appropriate sanctions to user RAF910 for what I consider non-collaboration, incivility, personal attacks, harassment, supposition and aspersions.

I requested the user assume good faith, stated to the user twice, I consider the user's statements personal attacks and harassments, but they continued.

Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Difference files showing the user statements, please click on the link then read the right side.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=next&oldid=741118844
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=741209444
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742239645
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742344735
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=792120156
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=804529223
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&diff=next&oldid=804562757

User notified https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RAF910&diff=prev&oldid=806595798 CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Most of these are a year old. I don't see harassment or personal attacks. I'm curious to hear if RAF910 has anything to offer here. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a case of sour grapes. CuriousMind01 is obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms articles, against massive opposition. He is also very upset that I’ve pointed out that he ignoring consensus and that he is continuously forum shopping.

His most recent activity’s, started in July of this year, when he lost a discussion on the “Criminal use” topic at the WikiProject firearms talk page by a 10 to 1 margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&oldid=803378307

On August 15th, he started forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=795679904&oldid=793877524. His intention is to overturn the 10 to 1 consensus against him on the WikiProject firearms talk page.

However, nobody thought enough about it to even respond. So, on September 27th he unilaterally made the change himself, with this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide&diff=prev&oldid=802568241 which I reverted.

On October 9th he continued forum shopping and started a new and separate RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page on the very same subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=804434393&oldid=803706627

He also went forum shopping at the Wikipedia Village pump page with this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=804435002

Please note, that he is currently losing the RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page, again by a 10 to 1 margin.

I am not the only one to question his behavior. Other editors, have also pointed out that CuriousMind01 is ignoring consensus and forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page discussion.

• ”Oppose this end run around the consensus at the project. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)”
• ”Oppose This is a perfect example of forum shopping. What’s next an appeal to Jimbo? --Limpscash (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)”

CuriousMind01 has an a agenda. If he cannot respect two separate discussions, with 10 to 1 consensuses against him, then he doesn’t belong here. Therefore, I recommend that he be indefinitely blocked. If not, he will waste more of our time on another page.--RAF910 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• RAF, this is helpful (though please use fewer paragraphs), but we need more, from more editors, to issue a block per NOTHERE or whatever. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• CuriousMinds has battled this issue of including criminal use many times, refusing to accept consensus. Like this RfC result (which had quite a few participants) [107], then again in another discussion at the same article [108]. Continually forum shopping. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 23 October

• If you review User:CuriousMind01 edit history, he seems obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms, Automotive, and other articles. As other editors have noted, he is a very aggressive editor and will endlessly argue his position against overwhelming consensus. I agree with RAF, that he is ignoring consensus and WP:Forum shopping. He is also WP:edit-warring on the Bushmaster XM15 article, with these edits [109][110][111]. He is also Wikilawyering with these edits [112][113], where he basically claims that his fellow editors cannot make changes to the Bushmaster XM15 article. In essence, that he is right and everybody else is wrong. He has launched personal attack with this edit [114]. My experience with User:CuriousMind01 left such a bad taste in my mouth that I stopped editing. Please see "Advice" discussion [115] at User talk:AmaryllisGardener. I also recommend that he be indefinitely blocked.--Limpscash (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

POV / BLP editing on Linda Perry‎ and Sara Gilbert

• Linda Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sara Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sara Gilbert and Linda Perry‎ are a married lesbian couple living in the state of California. California law "The spouse of a woman who gives birth is legally a parent" See not on talk:Sara Gilbert#Parentage for legal reference.

• 172.58.185.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and formerly 172.56.34.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been changing "birth of their child" to "birth of her/a child" Also, left a derogatory note on Linda Perry #1 diff.
• Linda Perry edits: 1 2 3 4 5 6
• Sara Gilbert edits: 7 8

The anon has been notified of the problem on their talk page and has not engaged.
The article should be protected and/or IPs blocked. I left a wp:RfPP#Linda_Perry.E2.80.8E_and_Sara_Gilbert request which has not been addressed even though others added afterwards have been. Jim1138 (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected both for three days; let's hope that helps. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Though adminly action has already been initiated, I'll mention that Talk:Sara Gilbert#Parentage is directed at that editor in particular, yet that editor has not bothered to participate in the talky-talk, suggesting inflexibility and POV-driven editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Destruction of Wiki Historical Records

Hello: Some five years ago I added additional information to the wiki record of an Escort Robbery in 1853 in Australia and the sinking of the ship Madagascar in 1853. I had completed extensive research to support my findings and included the references to that research in my edits. Today I discovered that someone had taken it upon themselves to remove my entries and to totally delete my research and to therefore change the historical record. I checked the page and found that a person who did that is now blocked from editing. When this happens the dishonest persons edits should be reversed so that the historical accuracy of the entry is returned. This is a really important matter as destroying the past destroys the importance of history. Can wiki reverse these pages to predate these inaccurate and dishonest edits?

Thanks Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbacks Again (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Anything that can be done by one editor can be undone by another (or perhaps with admin assistance). Deleted content either exists in the article-history and can be revived, or whole pages can be undeleted if the article no longer exists at all. It sounds like you know what article it is and what edits undid your work, so you can "simply" re-do your edits. Either look at the old edition and copy from there to the current, or revive the article as its former state (undoing all edits since then). With some detail, we can probably provide some thoughts about which way to go. But on its face, this is just a content issue--you note the other editor has already gotten administratively blocked--not an administrator-related incident. So maybe the article talk-page would be a better place to discuss it? Careful though...just because an editor was later blocked doesn't mean all his edits prior to that are invalid. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Next time please link to the article and the specific edit. If you mean this [116] then it was removed as "bold assertion based on dead link" and I am inclined to agree with the removal. The proper link was probably intended to be http://www.thesilentmoon.com/ , but that's a self-published book and is very unlikely to be considered to be a reliable source (see WP:RS). Unless Geoff Stewart is recognized expert in this field (and it is unlikely such an expert would publish his work as an e-book) this is just one person's opinion and does not belong in the article. Meters (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Redbacks Again is the author of the self-published e-book which is being used as the reference for the material in question and which is being added as an external link. See User talk:Meters#removal of my entries Frank the Poet Meters (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Material added to a Wikipedia article must be supportable by independent reliable sources as described at WP:RS, and your own self-published ebook is not an acceptable source. You are effectively adding your own original research, which is forbidden by WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I should also add that this is a content issue and not an administration issue, and so admins can do nothing about it anyway. The correct venue is the talk page of the article, where you should seek a consensus regarding the inclusion (or not) of your content. If that fails, then the dispute resolution steps at WP:DR should be considered. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:WyndingHeadland

I believe that User:WyndingHeadland is engaged in disruptive editing on Highland Clearances. The behaviour seems to be getting worse. Most recently we have had:
Diff 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highland_Clearances&diff=806114230&oldid=805281916
Diff 1 makes allegations (in the edit summary) about ignoring consensus, but has actively deleted text that was specifically agreed on the talk page as follows:
Diff 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances/Archive_4&diff=788568313&oldid=778953171
(It is the section on “Proposed deletion of section titled "Religion"” – diffs are lengthy due to archiving.)
Diff 2 includes an agreed piece of text that was incorporated in the article, but later deleted as per Diff 1. It starts with “Roman Catholics had experienced a sequence of discriminatory laws in the period up to 1708…….”. The rest of Diff 2 is a lengthy discussion in which 2 other users brought in ideas that led to User:ThoughtIdRetired changing and developing their opinions – with the result that better content was inserted into the article. This would seem to be a model piece of using consensus to get a better encyclopedia.
The text that was reinserted as per Diff 1 was flagged for deletion as per the following, collectively: Diff 3:
3(a) (This is the main part of the post) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799946260&oldid=799664221
3(b) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799946693&oldid=799946260
3(c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799964988&oldid=799946693
3(d) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799965131&oldid=799964988
3(e) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799965344&oldid=799965203
No answer was received from any users to this proposal. It was left on the talk page for 10 days and then actioned, as per the following (Diff 4):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highland_Clearances&diff=801637743&oldid=800856134
This deleted text, with its various problems, was reinstated by User: WyndingHeadland in Diff 1. It is worth noting that 2 “citation neededs” disappeared in that reinstatement, with no talk page discussion or refs provided.
Diff 1 was reverted as per Diff 5:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highland_Clearances&diff=806507000&oldid=806506934
An extensive justification of this was provided on the talk page (Diff 6):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=806507623&oldid=805213684
User:WyndingHeadland responded on the talk page with further allegations on the talk page, but no answers to any of the points raised in Diff 6. This is shown in Diff 7:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=806564857&oldid=806510598
User:ThoughtIdRetired answered this with Diff 8:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=806579160&oldid=806564857

Previously we have had other unsubstantiated allegations, for example Diff 9:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=803807512&oldid=803763363
No references are given to support the accusation – there is no detail on exactly what the problem is.
There seem to be no instances when User:WyndingHeadland has cited a reference (beyond copying and pasting other editors' work).
The fact that Highland Clearances needed (and still needs) substantial improvement received the following support.
Diff 10, search for “Quality/Neutrality” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances/Archive_3&diff=715652271&oldid=636831920
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

We now have further input from User:WyndingHeadland as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=806647950&oldid=806579160

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

People that are accused of being sockpuppets Diabedia for editing national anthems

I noticed that there are many people who aren't Diabideia are blocked by the admins because of the similar edits but only difference is that some have lyrics that are actually true. This result in the removal of the national anthem lyrics such as the Kazakh national anthem and the Turkmen national anthem. They are being marked as WP:NOTLYRICS when according to official sources such as government websites, they are lyrics. Some users such as are accused of being sockpuppets of Diabedia, this is an example of WP:TOOLMISUSE. Please investigate this. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If I've understood you correctly, that is precisely the point. WP:NOTLYRICS says that we should not act as a lyrics database, in articles wher the majority of the article is purely lyrics. The article is a case in point: almost solely composed of lyrics. So if those anthems are defined as lyics, clearly they should be removed. In any case, it's not strictly just lyrics; your poems, too, no less, would be as equally vulnerable. As for the socking: perhaps WP:MEAT is more applicable...? — fortunavelut luna 14:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Incidenatlly, User:RainbowSilver2ndBackup; since you are clearly referring to User:Yunshui, you still must notify them that you have strted this discussion, even if you choose not to name them directly. I have done so at this time. — fortunavelut luna 14:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

...and why are you operating multiple accounts anyway? Re: User:RainbowSilver? — fortunavelut luna

I've forgot my password in the first account, that's why. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Lyrics are most often used in song articles where there is historical information, such as lyrics changing over time and/or specific references within the lyrics which need explanation. For just straight lyrics, that's what Wikisource is for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I reverted the edits of User:2620:65:8000:A203:85E2:66D0:4A02:DD3E who has been doing similar things and they've just been blocked by There'sNoTime. DrStrauss talk 17:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Badkittydemon appears to be a troll

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

---

Every single one of User:Badkittydemon contributions is nonsense, so I am inclined the user is a troll. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe you just haven't got the creative I.Q. to get it to make sense. I could enlighten you but I doubt it will matter. Does that make you a troll... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badkittydemon (talk • contribs)

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

BLP violations on Princess Marie-Esméralda of Belgium

An IP, 2a02:c7d:3bad:f00:350c:c72b:ceeb:8c78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), started adding unsourced content to the Princess Marie-Esméralda of Belgium page. I reverted those changes, but since then another user, SéverineMaélie, has come and done the same changes (I'll inform both in case they are not the same people). Since this is all unsourced, these edits violate the BLP policy, and hopefully some sort of action can be taken against the editors in question or the page itself. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent WP:OR/WP:V issues with SerM12345

• SerM12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of terrorist incidents in October 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SerM12345 has a persistent habit of adding entries to List of terrorist incidents in October 2017 where the sources do not support their inclusion. Recent examples are: [117], [118], [119], [120], [121]. This user was warned on their user talk page repeatedly by myself, DrKay, DeFacto, Doug Weller, and MonsterHunter32. They never have communicated with any other users on talk pages and has only once commented on an article talk page to ask why the article was protected ([122]).

This is a pervasive problem on these terrorism list articles. Given the lack of communication and the persistence of the disruptive behavior despite warnings and attempts to communicate, I am requesting the use be blocked for a bit to prevent further disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have asked him to source his edits properly and not add his own claims. I would like to discuss it, but he seems least interested in responding. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring, harassment and potential sockpuppetry from User:Marco010101 towards User:Matthew Hk

• Marco010101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Matthew_hk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring over temperature in rome and vandalism on Matthew Hk's Userpage. War has been happening for a while now and has been mainly over information on Romes temperature. Matthew Hk has has opened an ARV against Marco but it seems better to bring this here. -glove- (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Entirely hoax data created by Marco and urgently need to block him. end. Matthew_hk tc 18:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Support block. Just reverted edit here where the user entered data for Ramacca (in Sicily) but used source for Rome. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

articles suffered from hoax:

• Ramacca ‎ (provided a link for Rome data in Russian)
• Rome (provided a link http://www.holiday-weather.com/rome/averages/ that don't have Marco's data)
• Climate of Rome
• Catania Matthew_hk tc 18:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

off-topic, after reverting Marco in Rome, another ip vandalized the article (in other form): 199.197.86.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Matthew_hk tc 18:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

False Claims by User Matthew_hk

Matthew_hk accused me of being a "vandal only account, create hoax climate data" and of having violated the terms and conditions. All of this is untrue: as you can see, I only made edits on his wrong climate data, and I have 2 valuable sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

merged with above section. Matthew_hk tc 18:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marco010101: the sources you provided in your edits do not support the changes you made. In some cases, they were unrelated cities. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the source. You were right about that, I put the wrong source on Ramacca's article without realizing it. Now, though, everything is fixed and justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco010101 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing admins, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weathertrustchannel EvergreenFir (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marco010101: https://www.ilmeteo.it/portale/archivio-meteo/Ramacca the link did not have your data. Either you put the data from any one year from 2006 to 2017, or you made an original research to sum up and calculate the mean and high low. Or in simple word, failed verification. Matthew_hk tc 19:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have verified that Marco010101 (a) has been adding content which contradicts sources, even sources which he himself has provided in the very edits where he has added that content, (b) has made edits which contradict one another, in a way that looks like just making up data as he goes along, and (c) has been edit warring. I have blocked the account for three days, which I regard as a token short block in the hope of persuading him to change. If he does not change I will be willing to consider a much longer block, perhaps indefinite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Vituzzu who blocked a suspiciously similar account globally. That block mentioned LTA. Wondering if there's an LTA case I'm unfamiliar with that may be germane to this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The mention of long term abuse brought back to my mind another case exactly like this, with an editor who posted false climate data to numerous articles, using fake references to sites that did not support the data he or she was posting. Unfortunately it was a long time ago, and I don't remember much about it. I don't even remember whether the vandalism related to places in Italy. The "suspiciously similar account" that EvergreenFir refers to is OFF26, which is tagged on Italian Wikipedia as a possible sockpuppet of Meteorologo1. Meteorologo1 has edited only on Italian Wikipedia, OFF26 in Italian and English Wikipedias. Meteorologo1 was indefintiely blocked on Italian Wikipedia in February 2015 for block evasion, which suggests the existence of one or more accounts from earlier than that, as does the reference to "Long-term abuse" in the global lock log for OFF26.

Marco010101 is listed as a possible sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weathertrustchannel, and it looks to me as though that is likely to be correct. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

IP continuously adding unsourced

I have been in discussion with a user at @68.129.15.71: for months now on not adding specific content to articles. This ranges from minor errors to improper italics, to suggestions of ignoring needing sources and poorly sourced content ranging from adding content and citing sources to do not claim it, not noting their edit summary, adding sources with IMDb as a source (against WP:RS/IMDb), and addition of unsourced content after a user can not find sources. After months of discussion on the users talk page and extra explanation of rules and what we can and can not add to wikipages, I've reached a wits end in trying to keep articles up to code. Discussion does not seem to help with the user who seems to dislike the rules, but wants to continue editing. How do we resolve this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is an extensive catalog of warnings on his talk page from many different editors on unconnected articles. This clearly isn't an isolated dispute between two editors but an ongoing problem with a particular editor's approach to Wikipedia. An escalating series of short blocks wouldn't be out of order here to try and modify the editor's conduct. He should be encouraged to create an account too and to enter into a mentor program. Betty Logan (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks @Betty Logan:. Yes, I've basically tried to be civil and explain rules and even suggest where to try and change rules when suggested, but have not really found any real breaking rules to suggest otherwise. Its just I'm not really getting through to the user. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, I am not completely objective here. I got involved in a dispute with this editor at Talk:Deep_Red#Additional_of_other_works. It was obvious to me he was well intentioned and hard-working but what came through was a general unwillingness to observe sourcing policy, MOS:FILM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. He has a lot of enthusiasm for a neglected area of articles but at the moment he is creating a lot of work for editors who end up cleaning up after him. Betty Logan (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive anon hitting List of cities by GDP

This edit is the fourth disruptive edit on List of cities by GDP by 151.54.50.151 (talk · contribs), who has been warned. Batternut (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ummm.... WP:AIV? Just a suggestion... Kleuske (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'll try WP:AIV (first time there for me). Thanks. Batternut (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:AIV didn't help, alas (entry wiped as stale). Batternut (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent use of fansites at snooker player articles

Background

The problem

I would like to get advice/recommendations/suggestions to help resolve the impasse at snooker player articles which use fansites to source career statistics. The biggest problem is occurring at Ronnie O'Sullivan. The problem we face is that snooker's governing body doesn't maintain a centralised record of career statistics, so we are often dependent on the media and event broadcasters to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately many blanks still remain so fansites attempt to fill them in themselves. Most of the controversy revolves around prize money and century counts, so significant statistics in snooker. Unfortunately these fansites are not consistent and often contradict more reliable sources where they exist. I am just going to highlight the problem at the O'Sullivan article because this is where it is at its worst, and that article is GA rated. I appreciate my report is long and most of your have better things to do, but it does involve biographies of living people so it is important that the issue at least gets a fair hearing.

The sites

These are the fansites that the data is often cribbed from:

• Cue Tracker
• Snooker.info
• Pro Snooker Blog
• Snooker stats

Examples of anomalies

Now, some of these sites are very good, especially Cue Tracker which has an excellent database of match results. The problem with these websites though is that their records are often incomplete and also it is not immediately clear which matches "count" towards the stats so discrepencies inevitably creep in. Here are just some examples of anomalies, and there are countless others:

1. Prior to being overtaken by Ronnie O'Sullivan, Stephen Hendry held the century count (775) record upon retirement. This is well documented by the BBC, World Snooker (the official governing body), The Guardian and Guinness World Records. Yet CueTracker persists with sticking Hendry on 772 century breaks.
2. There is also an inconsistency between Eurosport and CueTracker over the amount of prize money O'Sullivan has won. Eurosport maintains it is £8.5 million while CueTracker states £9 million. This is important because CueTracker's figure would hand O'Sullivan the record, but no other site or publisher is reporting this. If O'Sullivan had taken the reord it probably would have been reported elsewhere.
3. Snooker.info has Steve Davis listed on 338 century breaks, contradicting World Snooker and the BBC that he retired on 355 centuries. Snooker.info is particularly problematic because errors instigated here at Wikipedia have transferred to Snooker.info in the past. I don't have an example of this but I have noticed it while updating articles, which means that Snooker.info is using Wikipedia as a source.
4. The problems at Snooker.info transfer to Pro Snooker Blog, which uses Snooker.info as a source (as acknowledged in the blurb).

Clearly this is why we don't allow self-published sites in the first place except in extremely limited circumstances. If the sites were all consistent I might be able to overlook it, but the inconsistencies mean it is not clear who is right and who is wrong. It makes the stats in our articles essentially worthless.

Ongoing discussions and existing consensus

This has been extensively discussed at Talk:Ronnie_O'Sullivan#Referencing but as you can see the anonymous editors refuse to back down or accept that these fansistes are inaccurate, instead arguing that it is World Snooker and the BBC that are wrong. I have my suspicions that at least one of these editors is linked in some way to Snooker.info. There was also an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker/Archive_6#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? where the consensus was that it was not acceptable to uses these sites on the snooker player articles. This consensus is effectively being ignored.

Ongoing problems

In September the O'Sullivan article was semi-protected by Ritchie333 for "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy". After coming out of protection the pushing of fansite stats has resumed:

• October 12
• October 19
• October 23
• [123]
• [124]
• [125]
• [126]

I requested further protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ronnie_O.27Sullivan yesterday but it hasn't been picked up. The background is complicated so I understand why an admin wouldn't want to just wade in and lock up an article, but the deadlock on this issue needs to be broken. An RFC, talk page discussion and semi-protection does not seem to have had any impact as yet. I am on the verge of taking the article off my watchlist because I have grown weary of the issue, so this is a last ditch attempt to try and find some sort of solution.

Betty Logan (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Is it just a problem with this one article? If not, should we consider adding the relevant blogs to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist of English Wikipedia? Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is prevalent on many snooker player articles. I have highlighted the issue at the O'Sullivan article because it is GA rated and the discussions have mostly taken place on this article's talk page. CueTracker.com and Snooker.info are both listed at User:XLinkBot/RevertList, but this only reverts once and if not at all if the link is used as a reference. I think adding the four sites to a general blacklist might be a sensible next step. Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I was suggesting bypassing XLinkBot in this case and going straight to the blacklist, and didn't even check whether these sites were already listed. Yes, blacklist is the next logical step. Andrewa (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I know little about sport and nothing about snooker. But thank you for the long but clear and readable exposition of the problem, which I think I understand. Two questions for y'all (and especially Betty Logan). First, would it ever be beneficial to cite any of the fan websites mentioned above? Secondly, if editors weren't able to cite any of them, are there a pile of other, similar websites among which they could choose? If the answer to both is no, then since the problem spans many pages and an unlimited range of IP numbers and is spammish, I'd suggest simply blacklisting the relevant web domains. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless they are reliable sources, and they don't seem to be, they shouldn't be cited. This may not stop the IPs updating the pages with statistics from these sites, just from citing them as the source.

I'm taking that attitude that if our information from reliable sources is incomplete, we shouldn't fill the gaps from less reliable sources, particularly if on other matters these less than reliable sources are contradicted by better ones. Andrewa (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The arguments here show a good case for semiprotection of Ronnie O'Sullivan independent of whether the fansites are blacklisted, so I've gone ahead with six months of semiprotection. If there are other high-ranking snooker players that are also affected by the fansite issue, I imagine they should be looked at as well to see if semiprotection is justified. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no centralised pool of data, which is partly the reason editors have resorted to using fansites. World Snooker periodically announce stats when records are broken, and the BBC often provide a statistical breakdown when they broadcast tournaments (three times per year). Obviously there are long periods inbetween when the statistics are out of date. It is frustrating so I understand why these articles have become reliant on fansites. As for the sites themselves, they vary in quality: Snooker.info should be definitely blacklisted given the fact it sometimes uses Wikipedia a source (and there is an argument for blacklisting Pro Snooker Blog too given that it uses Snooker.info as a source). I know very little about snookerstatistics.webs.com but it offers no more than the other sites do, while CueTracker is easily the best but still contains inaccuracies. Either way, it's a lose-lose situation for the snooker project: by allowing these sites we end up with more incorrect data in the articles, but by banning them we end up with less accurate data too. Betty Logan (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I should have expressed myself more clearly. Aside from their statistics (whether true or false), would it ever be beneficial to cite any of the fan websites mentioned above? I mean, does any of them also have material that's clearly reliable and encyclopedic and not also found in sources that are more obviously reliable? If not, then adding each to the blacklist would have no downside, and doing so would save a lot of time for conscientious editors. (If anyone here is unfamiliar with the blacklist, it's not merely a list of domain names [etc] that clearly should not be added, it's a list of domain names [etc] to which adding links [or even retaining links] is impossible.) ¶ And a question. You (Betty Logan) say that by banning (blacklisting?) these websites "we end up with less accurate data". Do you mean that, their age aside, the data in Wikipedia would be less reliable? (I'd have thought that it would be better for a Wikipedia article to say that the BBC wrote in November 2015 that A was the case than to say that Dubiously Credible Website X wrote in September 2017 that Y was the case.) Or do you have something else in mind? -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC) rephrased Hoary (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

By "ending up with less accurate data" I simply meant we would end up with out-of-date data which would be updated less frequently than it is now. I suppose that in itself isn't really a problem in the long-term because ultimately real-time updates are not essential to providing enyclopedic coverage of a person's career. I would also contend that far from being "beneficial", the citing of these websites is actually counter-productive to maintaining a standard that is on par with reputable encylopedias. When our data doesn't match that of the BBC or World Snooker itself then that is a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Abir Babu - Disruption involving female genital mutilation and talk pages

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

---

User:Abir Babu has -

Removed talk page comments that were viewed as “flawed” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abir_Babu&diff=prev&oldid=806752668 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Male_genital_mutilation&diff=prev&oldid=806752995

Filed a nonsensical report at WP:AIV, since deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=806769785

The history of this account shows that its purpose seems to be to right great wrongs, but it isn’t clear what the wrongs are. They seem to include some issue involving female genital mutilation.

I recommend an indefinite competence block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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