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. 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

Blocked in violation of policy

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

---

Dear administrators,

Recently, I found that a number of article about galaxies contained fanciful names invented, apparently, by an amateur astronomer from Belgium. These names have no legitimacy, no recognition and no place in any encyclopaedia article. So I began to remove them.

At 00:02 on 29 July, I made this edit. At 00:05, the edit was undone by User:Winhunter. At 00:06, they left me a message accusing me of vandalism [2], and at 00:07, they blocked me for 72 hours, claiming vandalism [3].

WP:VAND says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." It later says "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

It is not possible to perceive my edits as vandalism. They were clearly not intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. They were clearly a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. Nor were they misguided, disruptive or wilfully against consensus. Indeed, they had been explicitly endorsed by a consensus [4]. So the block was obviously wrong.

The administrator who placed the block has made less than 200 edits since 2010. Approximately 30 of these were on 29 July this year, when they went on a spree to undo my edits. They broke sort ordering in a table that I'd fixed, replaced incorrect punctuation that I'd removed, and of course replaced nonsensical galaxy "names" in a series of astronomy articles.

The administrator was vaguely questioned about the block [5], but has not responded. Given their extraordinarily sparse editing history, it seems unlikely that they ever will. They have not edited since their spree of reverts ended in the small hours of 29 July. The block was obviously incorrect, and the failure of the administrator to explain or account for their actions seems to me to fall far below the standards you expect. So I raise it here for your awareness. I think that an administrator who barely edits in a decade and then places such an obviously wrong block is a problem. I hope that you agree. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm gonna have to agree with the IP here. The block, in my opinion, was unwarranted. In particular, what's more troubling is that the blocking admin clicked the block button after the second warning when it is normally after four warnings unless the user is only here to truly vandalize. The IP's edits were seriously not vandalism at all. And 72 hours is seriously harsh. All of the IP's edits were WP:BOLD. Also, to revert all of the IPs' edits was also really unnecessary unless you have good reason (e.g., sock). In terms of content, I agree with the IP. The source used to name NGC 523 comes from a blog and the names are not known per consensus at the WikiProject page. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. Someone needs to go back to admin school, and in the meantime needs to account for his/her actions. EEng 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies, Anthony Bradbury, Berean Hunter, and Winhunter: Pinging the admins who made the blocks. — Maile (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not to stir the shit, but I'm here to thoroughly agitate the fecal material. I just want to say that I'm not surprised an edit summary with the phrase "removed idiotic dithering and insults. just how stupid are you?" resulted in a block, though to be fair, there's something to be said for letting a recently blocked editor vent a little. But we have to give admins the same leeway we give other users; if an admin blocks after being called stupid and accused of "idiotic dithering" for trying to give good advice to someone, we should show said admin a bit of patience, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a separate matter. I said that when my appeal against the block was treated with contempt and trolling, something I plan to discuss once we have established whether the block could have had any possible justification. I do not think shit stirring like this is helpful. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Also don't selectively quote me please. The edit summary continued it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits, and to recognise that the block was an extreme violation of policy. but you don't even have that.. This was 36 hours after I had been blocked for no reason, and after two administrators refused to help. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's how ANI works. We look at ALL of the aspects of the case, not just the ones you'd like us to look at. While I understand your frustration at the block, you need to understand that civility is required. Your best course of action would be to apologize for it, or at the very least make clear that you understand that it's not acceptable. Note, I am not saying Winhunter's block was valid, but you both have issues in this case that need to be addressed. --Tarage (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look at my block log, I'm of the mind that it's a lot more helpful than insulting an admin trying to help you. The fact that you're still calling that help "contempt and trolling" is probably not helpful, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No admin was trying to help. What makes you claim that they were? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter was offering you advice, and has even indicated that they were sympathetic to your situation before you blanked your page with that insulting edit summary rant and caught a block extension for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case". 2.25.45.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It is true as anyone can see in the diff I posted. If you feel like Berean Hunter wasn't helpful or sympathetic, then I suggest you try to wrangle your feelings into something based on the real world, and not on the assumption that everyone who doesn't immediately jump to your defense with guns blazing is actually out to get you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• That was a poor initial block, and WH should respond the next time they log on. Unfortunately it may be a while, as WH doesn't appear to be very active. WH is responsible for the poor initial block, and the IP and other blocking admins and reverters share relative blame (by some formula I don't plan to come up with) for the ensuing flameout. Advice: Don't block too quickly, don't assume all IP's are vandals, don't react too aggressively, don't punish someone venting on their talk page, don't revert something you don't understand just because you see other people doing it. That said, I'd say this is something that Wikipedia is best known for.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh lord that opens another can of worms. I'm not going to touch that one. Regardless, this is yet another troubling instance of administrators going well beyond their bounds with seemingly no means for the community to enact corrections. I realize there is a pending case in arbitration for something similar, but I have little faith that it will result in anything but a 'this is a one time issue' statement. We need better. --Tarage (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay I agree with Floquenbeam here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._K._Chesterton&diff=prev&oldid=791125842 is enough evidence that this is who we're dealing with. Someone needs to block ASAP. --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I really do not understand what you're saying here. Was that edit a bad edit? It seems to be it was a good edit that improved the article. I think the previous was very jarring, using the present continuous tense when the guy's been dead for more than 40 years, and using five words where one would do. I think that any capable editor would wish to make the same or similar change. But you think I should be blocked for making this edit? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd also add the advice: don't insist on hearing from the blocking admin first, when that person typically shows up infrequently, especially when it becomes so obvious that the block was incorrect. All in all, I'd have been pretty livid too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll just put this out there as well; an admin who (prior to reverting all of the IPs edits) had 19 edits to Wikipedia in 2017, two in 2016, and four in 2015. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

For sure, it was a bad block for the wrong reasons, but given the above, it needs to be reinstated. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep seeing new things to comment on. Assuming this is not who I think it is, then I really think the long 1RR restriction imposed as a condition for the current unblock is unfair. Not sure how an incorrect 3 day block morphs into a 3 month 1RR restriction in order to get unblocked. Perhaps if it was also applied to WH and to the people who automatically reverted the IP again - people who actually reverted incorrectly, unlike the IP - but somehow I don't think that's likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I just restored the IP's edits in Contemporary Latin per WP:MADEUP and WP:SELFREFERENCE, which should have been pretty clear-cut. Like Floquenbeam, I'd be pretty pissed off if I were the IP, making good faith efforts. It's no excuse, but certainly a reason to fly off the handle. Kleuske (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I second Floquenbeam and Kleuske. All in all, it was a bad block from the first blocking admin. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Agh - that's really not good either. Whether or not the IP editor is BKF (at this point it doesn't really matter), I think there are a number of things that a number of editors could learn from the whole situation. But it did all stem from the original bad block, from an admin (and I'll say it again) with 25 edits to Wikipedia in the last three years. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite, I agree completely. I wish we didn't have such a trigger-happy Recent changes patrol who are biased against IPs, and this block...yeah. I went back through the archives of my talk page: I have been in the middle of mindless reverts on the one hand and insults on the other hand since at least 2011. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, first let's get a factor that could possibly conflate the analysis out of the way here: If you dig far enough back into the IP's contributions, you do begin to see a pattern of needlessly inflammatory language in edit summaries: [6]. That's something the user is going to want to address regardless of the outcome here.

That said, most of these comments are stale and none of them (as far as I can tell) were involved with the issues involved in the content dispute or the block. Certainly, no incivility issues were cited by the admin, as they should have been if they were contributing factors to the block. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with regard to this admin's inappropriate approach here. First off, they lept straight to a level three warning, assuming bad faith and perhaps forestalling otherwise productive discussion. Or at least, under normal circumstances it might have forestalled discussion, but Winunter doesn't seem to have cared for discussion regardless because, less than a minute later and for unexplained reasons, they changed their mind and blocked the IP altogether, without giving them a chance to process the warning and/or make a case for why their edits were not vandalism. And putting aside any possible, attenuated argument for how the IP's edits may have been disruptive in some form (and I don't think they were, in this instance) they clearly were not vandalsim. Even if said edit had been inappropriate (and they actually seem to align with our verification and sourcing policies, as well as consensus discussions on the matter), they were pretty clearly made in good faith to add permissible content, and thus not even in the remotest since WP:vandalism as the term applies on this project.

In short, Winhunter's behaviour here seems completely sloppy, if not outright WP:disruptive. And their failure to account for any of it is not particularly reassuring; far from being a context to assume that they may have legitimate reasons for having taken the actions that they did, the fact that they may once again have gone into dormancy is actually strong additional cause to consider stripping them of the bit. We simply can't have admins empowered with the block hammer who make highly questionable choices in how they implement it, without sufficient explanation, and then just disappear into the aether again immediately. Indeed, the particular details of this case raise the question of whether it is advisable to allow a user to maintain such tools at all, after such a prolonged period of inactivity. Admins need to be completely up-to-date on community guidelines, be reasonably well-practiced in how to implement them and be regular, recognizable, and constructive contributors to the project in general. I sense we are about to hear yet more complaints about how the community ought to be able to desysop without needing to appeal to ArbCom, for the second time in as many weeks; I'm neutral on that issue, but I will say that this instance makes a much stronger case than the one that can currently be found at the top of the page.

The one place where I will call out the IP is in their approach to that talk page discussion. Yes, they have cause to be frustrated here, but Drmies and other admins, having discovered the facts here, ultimately gave them a method to exit the mess and restore their full editing rights. All they were requested to do was repeat the unblock request (presumably for reasonable pro forma reasons) and instead chose to register their ire. That does raise the question of how they will cope with disputes or administrative matters in the future, I think. Nevertheless, I do think they deserve an apology for having been dropped into this mess in the first place. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that imposing 1RR as a condition for unblock is unreasonable when there's enough blame to go around, and should be removed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The whole behaviour and general gameplay of this editor is the likely cause of the grief. The first and second blocks were really justified by saying things like "Don't be stupid." [7] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [8] (then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!]. Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith. The pattern seems to me easily construed as deliberately WP:disruptive.

I also responded to the various complaints of the reverts made by me here.[9]

NOTE: I do suspect this unregistered User might be just another sockpuppet of the now indefinitely blocked Tetraquark [10], who also deletes Talkpage information they don't like or even blocks, turn quickly highly combative at any even minor slight, also edits astronomical pages (especially towards images), and equally shows similar poor and rude behaviour. (For a non registered User, they seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia policies. e.g. Quoting WP:IG) Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No, he for sure is for sure the BKF vandal, which is why I am concerned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP --Tarage (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Do either of you have any evidence to back up these suspicions? If not, WP:ASPERSIONS, if so WP:SPI. Kleuske (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Check out his edit history where there are numerous removals of phrases like 'best known for' with edit summaries straight out of that LBA page. If you want actual diffs I'll post them later tonight. It's pretty obvious. --Tarage (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case, WP:SPI is the correct place to post the diffs. Kleuske (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That was my initial thought as well, Kleuske (see my comments immediately below). But now that Tarage has linked to that longterm abuse page for the editor in question, I daresay the case is pretty strong and more than satisfies the WP:DUCK test, based on the contributions I have looked at since coming upon this thread. Unfortunately, SPI is going to be of less use than usual, since the use rin question does not register and hops from IP to IP. I do, however, agree that SPI should be the next stop: a sanction can still be implmented there, even without a CU, based on behavioural evidence (which i think is strong in this case). Filing at SPI will also allow exploration of the socking issues to be disentangled from the inappropriate admin actions being discussed here. Plus an admin action is more likely to be prompt at SPI, especially in light of the fact that admins may be hesitant to be the latest to reverse this editors status after the back and forth of the last 24 hours, if they first dsicover the situation via this mess. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave it to you then. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not recall removing "phrases like 'best known for'", and struggle to see in any case why you would think that could be called vandalism. It's quite ironic on a thread about being blocked with a false accusation of vandalism though. If you can find an edit of mine that you think was deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, only then you can accuse me of vandalism. You will not find any such edits. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty confident that you never act with the explicit intention of obstructing or defeating the project's purpose, for what it's worth. However, I also suspect you may have a substantial and fundamental disconnect with the collaborative nature of this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Haha, pretty sneaky sis! But this isn't my rodeo! It's your theory, and though you have me more than half convinced after sharing that link, if you're really confident, you're going to have to propose the action yourself. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That theory sounds like a matter for SPI. I will say that there is apparently a second line of speculation as to this user being someone else above (at least, there is reference to such positions, apparently drawn from another discussion that is not being linked to here). I will say that certain elements of this IP's behaviour and knowledge of process do suggest an experienced editor to me, but without more substantial editing, I am not willing to assume that they are anything other than what they claim to be: a moderately experienced non-registered user who ran afoul of particularly under-experienced admin and then lacked the patience to negotiate the situation as easily as they might have. And I suspect most community members here will feel the same, pending deeper evidence.

OhanaUnited, I initially shared your perspective and almost called on Drmies to reconsider repealing that restriction. Then I did a little more digging and saw the full context of how that came about. Bear in mind especially that Drmies' initial posts on that talk page were to validate the IP's position and call for all blocks and restrictions to be removed. Other admins/community members(both involved and uninvolved) then agreed, and the IP was asked to resubmit their unblock request, and was given back talk page access for that purpose. At this point the IP used that ability to speak their mind again to immediately balk and complain about the unfairness of having to take 15 minutes (at most, surely) to format that request. It was only at this point that Drmies changes their stance and implemented the 1RR restriction, while also removing the block. Even considering the frustrating and unfair context in which they were initially blocked, that was an impressive display of shooting themselves in their own foot. I'm not sure that 1rr is exactly the most targeted possible sanction here, given that edit warring does not seem to be their issue. But I suspect the intended preventative effect here was to make the editor think twice about acting impulsively when dealing with their fellow editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I was pinged here as the blocking admin? I'm the unblocking admin, who disagreed to some extent with the initial block or at least the given block rationale; I'm the one who (with Anthony) broke a lance for the IP editor. I used to do that in the old days for some other editor whose name escapes me (though Floq might remember)...no, I can't come up with it now. Anyway, I imposed the 1R restriction because it seems to me that trouble starts when the IP gets reverted and then strikes back. Snow Rise, your comments are quite to the point and I appreciate them. If the community thinks that the restriction is too much, that's fine: overturn it. But do note that I have not reverted any of their edits, that I believe I have advocated for them (here and in a slew of messages on the ArbCom mail list, where this user posted with ever-increasing urgency, and that I offered assistance, saying that they could ping me if they got reverted. Mind you, I didn't even need for them to request to be unblocked again--I was just hoping they'd say something reasonable. User:OhanaUnited, in these circumstances, I don't think my restriction was unreasonable. At any rate, have at it, y'all--I did my bit by supporting the IP's initial case and unblocking them, and at the same time trying to protect all sides with a restriction that will require the IP editor to reflect and give them the opportunity to call in the cavalry--but I won't be surprised if this backfires spectacularly, given how the temperature seems to rise when this editor shows up, no matter how solid and positive their edits are. Please don't ping me anymore in this ANI thread: it's not a concern of mine. If the IP wants to ping me to point at some revert or other, my door is always open, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • But I wasn't blocked for reverting anything, or striking back after reverting. I was blocked for vandalism, when I had clearly done no such thing. I am glad to see that the consensus here seems to be quite strongly that the block was not valid. I am extremely heartened to see that someone suggested I deserved an apology for it. I am less heartened to see I'm accused of being various sockpuppets but whatever.
  • As for what I said when asked to make one more unblock request: what was the need for it? I'd been blocked for vandalism, blocked for being angry about that, and then blocked for no actual clear reason for *three months*. I'd followed all the appeals right up to mailing the arbitration committee, which was crazy given how obvious it was (confirmed here) that the original block was wrong. And then someone says "I'll unblock you, but only if you ask me to one more time." It seemed really pointless. I stand by that.
  • And as for editing restrictions, well I'm not likely to edit any articles for a while anyway. You'll notice I have not edited any articles since being unblocked. The whole experience of being blocked for "vandalism" when making perfectly good edits was extremely unpleasant, and doesn't particularly make me feel like fixing errors I find, far less refixing them when other people have unfixed them, having been accused of "disruption" when I did that before.
  • Anyway I have found this a very useful and interesting discussion. Thanks. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Saying "I was blocked for vandalism," is not entirely true. The first two instances you were plainly blocked for saying things like "Don't be stupid." [11] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [12]. You then multiplied the mistake by then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!

I see these blocks as a reflection of your own poor aggressive behaviour and the utter contempt you exhibit to others (including me.) This is clearly the needed evidence of "disruptive editing." None of your excuses above at all addresses your own poor behaviour, and your near continuous inflicted 'insults' to other Users if they disagree with you. Wikipedia is for editors in collaborations not those acting like vigilantes. (Some wisdom: Showing an inkling of contrition here would help your cause considerably.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Vandalism it plainly says: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose,..." The word 'behaviour' here is important, and hasn't been addressed by this IP User at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This editor accuses me of aggressive behaviour while aggressively undoing my reverts and slandering me, restoring to articles things that they themselves had described as "abhorrent" and (incorrectly) "vandalism", and responding aggressively when I asked them why they did that. They are yet to provide an answer. I do view them as a problem but that's really a separate discussion. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Go right ahead. You are falsely accusing me of something. You were blocked not just because of the edits but because of your behaviour. If someone reverts an edit once, twice or three times, right or wrong, you should attempt to seek consensus. You did not do this at all. Instead you started throwing insults. End of story. Get it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Arianewiki1, the IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. Of all the three blocks, only one was regarding civility and NPA. The other was for disruptive editing. I don't know if you're insinuating that the IP was vandalizing, because that is entirely false. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hooo boy, if somebody filed an RfA like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Winhunter 2 today, they'd get WP:SNOW opposed out of the door. How times change. Meanwhile, I have been in 2.25's shoes myself as I used to edit logged out at my local library for security reasons - see User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 45#The war on IPs continues, and I seem to recall I was pretty pissed off when I got hit with a two year block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The first one is even more telling, but in both Winhunter expresses a very personal take on fighting vandalism, clearly identified as arising out of their frustration as non-sysop to be able to stop them more immediately and effectively. In fact, at every opportunity and before all other factors, they identify their reason for wanting tools to be the ability to rapidly block vandals. That's pretty telling under the present circumstances. It seems these days, in the few minutes they can spare the project every few years, the user now has no time for warnings or discussion before blocking on their vandal assumptions. Not withstanding the fact that I'm low on AGF for the IP, we do owe them for bring this to our attention and I think this matter should be referred to ArbCom, regardless of whether or not the IP gets boomerang blocked for socking. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• IMO this is why admins should need to earn their wings every year, and not just by making X admin actions; they can't just disappear for over a decade and then swoop in and do stupid $#it with the tools and get away with it. There needs to be a requirement that admins make at least X number of actual edits (not admin actions) every two years or they are de-sysopped. We've been skirting around this problem for way too long and I've seen way too many absentee admins do stupid stuff. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That would help considering the other contributing factor of this issue: editors who became admins in the early days of Wikipedia, when the requirements for a RfA candidate were much lower. Cjhard (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I would survive a reconfirmation RfA, I've made too many enemies. I suspect if you tried to make it policy, the turkeys would gather round and prevent a vote (or a !vote) for Christmas, even though in principle it's a good idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I think those voting against a reconfirmation RfA based on nothing more than a personal grudge would be identified as doing so and would be discounted when establishing consensus, just as the case would be in regular RfCs. But you're not wrong that it would perhaps be more of an issue. That's something in favour of Softlavender's idea of an increased minimum standard of activity to maintain sysop status: it provides an objective standard, avoiding the axe-grinding issue completely. Cjhard (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned this possibility above, and though I can't recall having seen it anywhere before, I can't fathom that it has been suggested repeatedly over the years. It's definitely a more reasonable solution than recurrent RfA's in my opinion. That's just begs for disruption and bad blood from a completely needless airing of grievances, which the most disruptive editors will be most certain to turn out for. But a minimum standard of activity? That's completely called for. I'm surprised we don't have it, except to say that the community probably wasn't thinking in the longterm as we originated and perpetuated the process; only with time has the need become obvious. Seems like something that is ripe for VPP, if you ask me.Would need broad support from existing admins though, to survive the community process. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• SPI clerk comment - based on the IP's behaviour here and the non-CU technical evidence available to me, I can't reason a situation where this IP is any other than the Best Known For long-term abuser, who is banned by the community. If you want, compare in particular the IP's archived diatribe on their talk page with their comments in the linked ban discussion. While I respect that several admins here have taken it upon themselves to overturn what does appear to have been an inappropriate series of blocks, along with whatever's going on behind the veil of ArbCom, the community ban has been neither appealed nor overturned, and as such I have re-blocked the IP for 3 months to enforce the banning policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ivan. --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Admin acct

"That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case"." (link)

My responses show that is patently false and the fact that they cherry-picked a sentence from within a post that contains evidence that contradicts them is telling.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

I would still like to hear from Winhunter regarding the IP's initial concern. Has anyone emailed him?

BKF will have an additional ax to grind with me. His employer contacted me last week and I supplied them with lots of details. They identified him. Different managerial levels are involved and he has received formal counseling that he is not to use their network to edit Wikipedia again to which he has agreed. They are interested in him being a "good neighbour" from here on and it is ironic that I had just written someone looking into the case an email reply detailing the standard offer, how he should contribute elsewhere for no less than six months with an account and that he would have to request a ban appeal from the community. They intend to monitor the situation. That said, since the IP hints at inappropriate admin actions on my part, I'll refrain from commenting further on a possible socking connection here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've emailed Winhunter.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain that this is the user described in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP (if he doesn't scream abuse at my sympathetic reply above, it isn't), but if it is, he is community banned and should not be editing Wikipedia at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to support Arianewiki1 above - Behaviorally, this really looks like TQ. Scr★pIron^IV 18:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

He's been blocked as a sock of BKF. --Tarage (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh fair enough. He'll be back on another IP soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter thanks for your email, apologies I was busy during the week so couldn't respond to this thread earlier. I do recognize I could have actioned the original block in a better way so thanks for everyone's feedback. Noticed the thread is now concluded though if anyone require additional information from myself please feel free to reach out. -WinHunter ^(talk) 05:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm reaching out. What does "I could have actioned the original block in a better way" mean? EEng 05:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestion for improvement. At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal. I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning . -WinHunter ^(talk) 05:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Respectfully WinHunter, those responses are insufficient to address the questions being asked by the community members here. This thread is not in fact "concluded" and I dare say that it's an indication of your inexperience with this community in the decade since you became an admin that you don't realize that. The IP was banned for being a likely sock of a user banned for behavioural problems, but that doesn't let you off scott free for your involvement in this matter. You instituted a block for another user for vandalism, even though most every editor who has reviewed those edits agrees they are not WP:vandalism in any sense relevant to this community's guidelines. More seriously, you applied the block without any warning, discussion or effort at clarification with the user in question, (unless you count a level three template slapped to their talk page less than one full minute before you blocked them anyway). Then you immediately disappeared as the situation exploded, leaving other admins and the community to deal with the fallout of your actions while the user disruptively worked their way through every community process they knew of (both on the site and off), armed with a legitimate claim of admin abuse which only amped up their existing persecution complex and gave them an excuse to game the system.
  • I admit I am not an active Wikipedian, though I did not intend to "disappear" and when someone emailed me I immediately login over my iphone and tried to respond with my thinking at the time. I am not saying I did the right thing at the time and I do apologies for all the trouble as a result of that action, I was trying to explain my thought process and mentioned that I am open for suggestions for improvement. I am happy to review the latest policies again to refresh my knowledge and if the community still find next admin actions unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide my future.--WinHunter ^(talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You say: "At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal." Well...why? Legitimate users remove content across multiple related articles as a matter of daily business here; that is not sufficient cause in even the remotest sense to use your privileges to block. You then go on to say "I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning." But the reality is that you didn't provide any explanation of your block, beyond the erroneous "vandal" in the block summary, nor did you provide any real warning or make any real effort to discuss the matter with the user that you decided (on apparently no hard evidence) was a vandal. You got lucky this time that your random block happened to be a banned user, but the community is now reasonably asking if your lack of involvement here over a long period of time makes you a problematic steward for our most significant (and thus potentially disruptive tools). Sorry to be so strident about it, but your answers are not particularly reassuring me, because they seem to indicate you don't know basic proceedure for our WP:BLOCKing policy. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• (ec)Winhunter, please go to Arbcom and hand in your admin tools. You are very lucky that the IP you blocked turns out to be a banned user, but the reason you blocked them was absolutely wrong. "the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject" is not vandalism if the editor is correct and the data needs removal. These kind of edits need discussion, not the admin hammer, and that you still defend your block indicates that you have not learned anything from this episode. Coupled with your almost complete lack of edits and admin actions for years and years now makes it clear that you are no longer to be trusted to act as admins should. Fram (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with both of the above, in particular the call to resign. As I said on another thread, "We seem to have a mini-epidemic of editors in positions of trust who don't know which way is up, possibly due to limited experience editing articles and discussing with other editors." An admin with 3600 article edits and 350 article talk edits??? [13] And how does someone with that few (not-deleted) article edits accumulate 3300 deleted edits? Plus, he still doesn't doesn't seem to understand what he did wrong. EEng 14:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason of the high delete count is I decided to volunteer over recent years to helpout on WP:CSD as I have more limited time after my day job, and I hope you would find most of those deletions uncontroversial (like user request for their own userpages / obvious advertising etc). As I responded to another editor above I am happy to learn from this experience and review the latest policies, and if my next admin actions is still unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide on my future. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, that explains the deleted edits, but that leaves everything else. You still seem unable to enunciate what you did wrong in this case, which is _______________________________ (fill in the blank, please). EEng 16:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. "The reason I need to be an admin is _____________________." --Tarage (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Winhunter, your failure to engage these concerns is extremely troubling. EEng 23:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Fram and EEng. As a fellow Hong Konger, I would also like to ask you to hand in your admin tools. Removing inaccurate contents is something everyone does, IP or registered. Your revert could be viewed as repeated insertion of "Introducing deliberate factual errors", which ironically is grounds for yourself being blocked. I also think everyone here agrees that the resignation of WinHunter's admin rights, if that happens is considered as done "under the cloud". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Kick to ArbCom with community recommendation

There is clear consensus from this discussion and the comments above and below that administrator Winhunter's recent block and failure to adequately respond to inquiry is a dereliction of administrative accountability. As neither the community nor its administrators are empowered to act in this situation, the community requests Arbcom's urgent response. (Amended close, original here.) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

It seems that WinHunter is either unable or unwilling to provide significant explanation or engagement regarding the substantial community concerns relating to the problematic way in which WinHunter has approached the use of their privileges--as well as other concerns regarding whether they have sufficient experience, perspective, and engagement in the project to be serving in an administrative capacity. At present, WinHunter seems to either be trying to ride out the scrutiny, or else the handful of brief and insufficient responses above represent the sum total of their ability and desire to explain actions which, consensus in this discussion seems to clearly hold, were deeply problematic (and if I can add my own impressions, indicative of a lack of even the most basic understanding of our blocking policies).

However, ultimately the removal of tools is ArbCom's purview, so I don't see what more is to be accomplished here. We could long-term block WinHunter, but that does not seem the most transparent way to address the root issue, nor do I think we should prevent the user from possibly returning to the project to contribute productively in other capacities (unlikely as that seems given the user's lack of activity over the years since getting the bit). I therefore propose that we resolve to open a report with ArbCom, but that the report be coupled with a link to this discussion and a strong community endorsement that ArbCom investigate the issues here (and, depending on the result of this poll, a strong recommendation to desysyop). I was hesitant at first to suggest such an approach on the basis of one major incident, but the responses above have been wholly insufficient to assuage my concerns as to whether the user is an appropriate steward of the ban hammer, and I don't think I'm the only one. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Addendum: Since WinHunter has said that they are willing to accept community consensus on their future role as an admin (without specifying a particular community process), we can also consider asking them to voluntarily relinquish their tools, if the poll suggests they should, thus saving some time in the process. If they are unwilling to part with the tools on the basis of the community consensus here, then we can proceed with the request for review by ArbCom, no harm done. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support (as nom). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support WinHunter clearly has no real need for the tools, and no good idea about how they should be used. Please voluntarily tyurn in the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I'll take a look over this and file a case if consensus supports it. Twitbookspacetube 02:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Like Snow said, wait and see if Winhunter has the courtesy to simply resign ("under a cloud", of course). EEng 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering their behaviour so far, I seriously doubt it. But I'll give it a week or so. Hopefully the knowledge that another ADMINACCT case is heading there should be enough to get something out of them. If their response is anything like what it took Arthur a couple of months to produce, i'll be filing the case anyway. Twitbookspacetube 05:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Snow and BMK. EEng 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. And this should serve as a wake-up call for all admins that they can no longer dish out blocks with impunity if they cannot satisfactory justify their actions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not concur with your sentiments. I do not believe that "all admins" need a "wake-up call", but that the vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job. They don't need or deserve to be lumped in with an egregious example such as this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, just to be clear, I wouldn't be making this proposal, but for the fact that the issues are particularly egregious; I can't ever recall seeing another pattern of facts surrounding the improper use of blocking privileges quite like this. There are occasional sloppy or involved blocks that stand to have some scrutiny, but the distinguishing factors here are this user's tangential involvement with the project, single-minded reasons for wanting to be an admin, and lack of basic familiarity with the relevant policies. If not for that highly specific combination of factors, I would not have made the proposal--and I I'm not sure that all three apply to so much as a single other active admin. None that I've come across, certainly. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: "Vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job". That part I agree. But within last 30 days alone, we have 2 admins, including this one, who failed to satisfactory justify their actions (the other being this case which I'm sure you're aware of its existence because you commented on it). And these are the only complaints that surfaced because the affected party knows where and how to complain. Think about how many newbie biting incidents that didn't get reported and this number would have gone up. Two in a month isn't something we should be proud about. At any rate, admins have to be accountable for their actions and that's a given when they decide to run for it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course admins have to be accountable, and most of them do so willingly. As for 2 in a month - since there weren't 2 such last month or the month before, I'd say it's just random, the normal distribution of disconnected events, uncorrelated to the quality of our admin corps.

Look, I know there are some bad admins out there -- believe me, I've run into a few, and it's shocking simply because it's so rare. Most of the admins interactions I've had have been perfectly normal and justifiable, and if I'm being called to task, I've generally deserved it. We have 1,250 admins, over 500 of whom are active, and I'd be surprised if there were more than a couple of handfuls of bad ones, at the very most. So, I still think you're wrong about the necessity of a "wake-up call" to all admins. What we need is better procedures to get rid of the handful of bad apples, not swatting our admins en masse on their noses with a rolled up newspaper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That more or less sums up my position; the fact that we've had two public discussions about possible admin misconduct this month doesn't add up to me to say much about admins on the project in general. I find most act with restraint; indeed, if there is a problem these days, it's in getting an admin to act definitively on a pressing matter--but that's another discussion altogether. I certainly didn't intend this proposal to be a wake-up call for anyone; the facts are just particularly compelling that there is are basic competency/engagement problems, in the present case. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The user's inactivity, combined with their recent poor decision and poor response, suggests that they shouldn't be an admin. Perhaps this should serve as a lesson for us about having inactive admins. If you aren't a reasonably active contributor, you probably shouldn't be making administrative decisions. It's like any volunteer situation—while volunteer help is always welcome, you don't want some guy who only pops in a few times a year to be ordering other volunteers out of the building. Everyking (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. From the beginning, it was clear that this block was wrong, and wrongly done. And should have been reverted by the blocking admin, as soon as the consensus became clear on this matter. Perhaps (understatement) the IP has to be blocked for other reasons, by another admin. But it remains that WinHunter messed the situation... and failed to clean it. Don't keep the mop, if you don't understand what cleaning could mean. Pldx1 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support on the stipulation that part of the case also be able the community's ability to restrict/revoke mops for behavior like this. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom has no jurisdiction over the community's ability to desysop. The only non-ArbCom solution is to block the admin. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Then who does? --Tarage (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The community itself. It would require a policy change, usually via RFC. ArbCom is not supposed to make policy, rather enact it. A community desysop procedure does not exist, although I share your opinion that it should. -- Begoon 02:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per BMK. Bentogoa (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Proceed with caution I can only assume the author of this proposal has never actually dealt with an Arbcom case; the part about "with a community recommendation" is almost cute. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you intending to attempt to sound as if you are talking down to somebody there, from a place of superior / more worldly perspective, simply because you have gripes about ArbCom? No, I've never been a party to an ArbCom case, and quite happy to be able to say that. But like any other member of this community who has been around as long as I have been, I'm hardly ignorant of how matters are handled/unfold there. Or of the passive-aggressive contempt that flows in their direction from some corners of the community, regardless of the context in which their name is invoked. In any event, as I see it, we don't really have an alternative course of action here. Only ArbCom is empowered to de-sysop, so this matter has to be handled through that channel;the best we can do is share a link to this discussion and a comment about how concerned the community is with this particular user having privileges.

If you have a better course of action to suggest, I'm all ears. But I don't see what your comment contributes, at least in terms of actual substance with regard to the proposal. At least, I don't understand what "proceed with caution" would mean in this context, as a response to the proposal. The worst that can happen is that they don't act, and we have to consider another sanction if this user proves problematic. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just looks like you're taking the opportunity to register your low regard for ArbCom, but without actually say whether the proposal should be endorsed or not, or providing some alternative course of action. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Snow Rise. Cjhard (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose based on eventual outcome. Don't want Wikipedia to become best known for feeding its own trolls. Trout to Winhunter is good enough for me. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The fact that Winhunter continues to pretend he doesn't know anything's going on here should cement it for anyone still not convinced: he is absolutely not someone we want as an admin. EEng 02:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. There also needs to be a clear reform of the way administrators have been able to retain and use their tools even in spite of vast inexperience and absences of nearly a decade or more. I've seen this problem arise several times in the past few years; it is insupportable and needs to be fixed with new and stringent activity & knowledge requirements for admins. (For example, while I find it understandable that an admin might be away from WP for a year, if one year stretches beyond more than two years of virtual absence, I personally think the tools need to be removed [pending a new RfA], even if they used the tools a few times in that period.) Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the problem is absence per se, rather that very long absence takes us back to the time when RfAs were more, um, promiscuous, shall we say. Admins minted back then who have been active most or all of the time since have stood the test of time, but cases such as this one don't have that experience to reassure us that they should ever have been admins in the first place. EEng 05:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's mainly the long absence, since most early-minted admins have either grown up with the project and have at least learned on the job (or they have been de-sysopped). Those who split for a decade soon after being sysopped have no clue what they are doing and no sense that they should learn, or be held accountable, or why. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing. EEng 08:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

• Note that in light of the discussion below and my amendment to my close, I have emailed the Arbitration Committee to review this discussion in light of WP:LEVEL2. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Close discussion

• I think the close is inappropriate, and we should keep this thread open until we either hear from Winhunter or decide what to do as a community. EEng 20:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

To what end, though? We've already pretty clearly established that Winhunter isn't going to offer a satisfactory reply (it's been six days since the last one) and that nearly everyone who has commented here is, erm, uncomfortable with their status. The next steps are just as I said: either resign or Arbcom (or the third option that nobody really cares that much, which is not apparently the case). We can't force an administrator to resign, and we also can't force an administrator into a backdoor reconfirmation RfA which I fear this is turning into. I could file the Arbcom case on behalf of the discussion, but I'm not going to. There's the seeds here for a discussion about a community desysop process or revised activity requirements, for example, and I'd be pleased to see such a discussion, but this is both a bad venue and a bad frame for it, and a bad way to try to establish precedent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ivanector, respectfully, both your close and your response here suggest that you read neither my proposal nor the majority of responses to it thoroughly enough. I pretty clearly acknowledged that the community is not empowered to de-sysop Winhunter. Indeed, the very crux of the proposal is that we therefore forward the matter to ArbCom, which is one of the "alternatives" that you then propose in your close, despite the fact that this is exactly what the community members here are explicitly endorsing. Further, during the nine days this discussion has been open, no editor other than you yourself has so much as whispered the notion that we force this user to go through another RfA, and I don't think it was on anyone's mind until you mentioned it. That's a completely novel idea that has never been attempted before in the history of this community and I think we would have noticed if someone were suggesting it. It certainly was not remotely part of my proposal or hinted at in any response, so your concern that that this is "where this is headed" seems entirely unfounded.

I don't mind this being closed without a direct sanction (that was afterall, exactly what the proposal was suggesting) but I do think it is appropriate that the close reflects the community's strong condemnation of this misuse of tools; that could prove useful at ArbCom--minimally useful, I will grant you, but seeing as the use of such wording was basically the exact purpose of the proposal that was endorsed by the community here (as you say, anyone could have taken this to ArbCom at any time) and given that the !vote was a WP:SNOW result, I feel like your close missed the point of both the discussion and the community consensus, and unintentionally whitewashes the community's deep concern out of the close, which is supposed to be a summary of that consensus. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There is an option the community can enact: an indefinite block. Indefinite blocks have been used when someone disappears to avoid scrutiny. If WinHunter decides to reappear and provide accountability, the community can decide whether to proceed with an ArbCom desysop request. If not, the bit will expire due to inactivity and I can't imagine the bureaucrats returning the bit to a user who lost it while blocked. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Tools do not, from the best of my knowledge anyway, expire after a period of inactivity. But if they did, I am certain the strategy you suggest above would have been employed a time or two here. Probably with some degree of contentiousness though, as it would be sure to be seen by some as a backdoor desysop in violation of ArbCom's present sphere of authority. It would still be niece of admins could time themselves out in that respect, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no need to see a crat about restoring full tool functionality after a long absence. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:INACTIVITY 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Thanks for that. Even so, I think that blocking an admin just for the sack of forcing their tools to be taken away through a technical/procedural process, would be viewed as an inappropriate manipulation of the process by too much of the community--even editors who might otherwise support that same user being desysopped by a community vote (if that were an option). Under the present circumstances, I continue to think that ArbCom is the appropriate venue here, under current policy. though, notably, a lot of the community at late seems to be considering the notion of whether the removal of tools should be something that can be mandated by a community vote. I'm kind of inbetween on that notion myself, but regardless, ArbCom is our only option if we want to be perfectly transparent about what we are trying to achieve. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I appreciate your proposal and did read it before closing anything here, along with everyone's commentary, but I think the conversation is misguided. The (only) procedures for removing advanced permissions from an account are via Arbcom; this exact situation (an administrator makes poorly judged actions and fails to respond) is covered by WP:LEVEL2, which is a procedure which does not take into account an endorsement by the community at all. All that is likely to be accomplished here is delay, which works well against arbitrators seeing a situation as requiring serious intervention. And as I've said, I'm concerned that proceeding with this discussion allows the establishment of a half-baked precedent for community-directed rights removal, which is a discussion which needs to be more carefully considered than what we can do here right now. I don't think for a second that your proposal is in bad faith of course, but I do think you should get on with the LEVEL2 process sooner rather than later. Out of respect for the discussion to this point, I'll rework my close. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ivan, I appreciate your taking the time for both the response and the subtle amendment to the close. I am in full agreement that a broader discussion about what the do about de-sysop procedures ought to take a place in isolation to any one particular case of alleged misconduct. I also agree that any such discussion ought to take place in a more contemplative and carefully organized (rather than reactionary and ad hoc) fashion--and by necessity in a broader community forum than ANI. Frankly, I did not expect that multiple people would see the proposal as as a jumping off point for a broader community discussion on the state of ArbCom's sole remit on that role, but I guess I should have factored in the tension that has existed on this page on the topic, just recently. Personally, I have very much mixed feelings about whether or not sharing that role with the broader community would be a wise policy change, but given the atmosphere of late, I suspect it's just a matter of time before someone starts to seriously agitate for it. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

People have been seriously agitating for it for 10 years. Proposals even make it as far as RfC once in awhile. They never gain consensus. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Replace negativity-focused wikipedia compliance process with the positivity-focused wikipedia compliance process: I stumbled upon here while reading how wikipedia works. I start with an apology and self-declaration. I am not very experienced. I am not an admin. I do not even know if I am allowed to comment here, or if I am qualified enough that would make my comments permissible in your judgement. Apologies if I am trespassing or intruding in the unallowable territory. This is amazing how much time is spent and how many people get involved in disputes, blocks and revokes. I wish wikipedia was a nicer place to be. While clicking through wiki article links posted by others above, I came across Removing administrator rights which says if an admin has not made any edits in a year then revoke their admin rights. About the revoking the ban, if someone is so passionate enough to rejoin, let them come back specially if the sufficient time has passed. If he has not apologized, then may be he is too scared to apologize if he feels it might be held against him. Assure him that he needs to come clean, pour his heart out and it wont be held against him, etc. I think block is like imprisonment. If there is repeated imprisonment, without rehab, detox and counseling, then it may not cure the objectionable behavior. Better way to retain the passionate but "frustrated abusers" is by having a formal wikipedia mechanism to put the person through "mentoring", "onboarding", "shadowing the experienced editor" and "positive counseling" (not just negative warning and blocks/jail) and "community service" (get them to assists others making same mistakes, learn by teaching) and so on. Wikipedia's way of keeping vandalism and bad behavior out purely seems to be based on bombarding each other with warnings and blocks, no loving compassionate counseling. Those who are more experienced in playing this negative behavior, while being pleasant to their powerful colleagues, seem to win. Everybody else either has to be submissive and be corrupted by this negative-way of being successful and become part of this rot, or be thrown out (experienced ones can smartly frustrate newer ones into lashing out) or quit to retain their peace. Wikipedia principals are good, guidelines are nice but confusing and useful only for the experienced wikipedia power-players (at least publish an order of priority of wiki guidelines e.g. use consensus before using BRD, use gentle explaining before issuign warning, do not use warning unless you have mentored the person, and so on), processes are efficient but bad because they seem to "encourage narcissist behavior" (warn warn and warn at the slightest pretext, provoke them smartly into lashing out and play victim of attack and block), system is designed this way that only narcissists 9who are smart enough to pleasantly disguise it) stay, survive, thrive and rise. I remember reading in some guideline that calling some one narcissist is basis of ban, I am not attacking or calling any individual narcissist. Apologies, if I spoke too much. I only intend to draw your attention, and I beg you please can we do something to change this system. You have more experience, power, leverage, network to make this change happen e.g. do not warn but mentor, use positive reinforcement, ban or restrict negative behavioral modification tools/processes (currently they are excessive). Apologies too if that mechanism already exists. If it does not exist, then I assume all or most of you above are admins or very experienced editors. I request you to please take it up to set up this kind of positive onboarding and positive behavioral modification process. About these two guys, give them both "loving compassionate chance with proper counseling". Though the admin might have broken rules by not being active for a year, inform him that if he does not regularly use his account then his admin rights will be revoked, inform him in a pleasant way, not in the usual wikipedia bossy-warning-bully way. Same for the blocked guy, put him through some counseling under the wings of one of the designated experienced kind-hearted patient non-preachy non-bossy volunteer admin to learn the ropes for 3 months. Please include all. Let us not kick, jail, kill anyone. Conquer them with love. Let me know too if I am disturbing in not-allowable forum, and i will shut up. Thanks for reading, for your patience and kind consideration. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

PS, Just noticed, while I was typing my comment, the discussion has moved on and case closed. Apologies for my comment above (submitted almost simultaneously with closure verdict). Thanks for the understanding. I am just a reader-learner. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Triple-Two, first off, welcome to the project. To answer some of your inquiries: You are permitted to post in this space; any user is allowed to, permitted they are participating productively in a discussion, abiding by our general community guidelines, and just generally not acting in WP:disruptive fashion. That said, in this particular space, it's usually best to keep your comments more focused upon the specific issues being explored here rather than making more generalized and prolonged arguments about the manner in which the project operates. However, there are a bevy of other spaces where this kind of discussion does take place: you may be interested (as starting points) in spaces like WP:WikiProject Editor Retention and WP:Village Pump; to adress other issues with a learnign curve that you note, the Wikipeida directory, editor's index, the help page, and the Teahouse, (a space for mentoring newcomers) may all prove useful to you.

At the core of your commentary is a laudable notion that new members of this community ought to be welcome into it with warmth, gratitude and encouragement. I think you will find that this vision is shared more in common with your fellow Wikipedians (especially amongst long-term consistent contributors) than you seem to be assuming. There are many spaces which address the issues through the type of lens you seem to be encouraging; we have numerous WP:MEDIATION and WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION processes that editors can avail themselves of, as well as multiple mechanisms to solicit impartial additional views on editorial issues--you are correct that are not highly visible to newcomers, lost amongst the deep mechanics of the community processes here, which take time and familiarity to parse through. Sadly, while there is always room for improvement, I think that the complexity is partly just an inherent result of the scale and complexity of this project, and not merely the result of poor priorities or design by this community.

In the same vein, I think you are perhaps assuming too much about the motives and perspectives of the admins and community members who work with the processes involving blocks and sanctions. Keep in mind that this space is specifically reserved for persistent or serious issues, so of course one sees a high level of contention. There are countless thousands of little collisions on the project on any given day that are handled with tact and mutual respect and encouragement and never arrive here or an an admin's talk page. The strong lines sometimes drawn here by the community also don't mean that experienced editors here lack sympathy for new contributors. You will find that most discussions end with an assumption of WP:ROPE or even more positive outcomes. And when it doesn't go that way, it isn't because the community wishes to punish someone, but rather because we want to prevent further disruption. Take the present case: you suggest that we should give a warning to this admin that they cannot do as they did, and then let the matter go at that. But I'm afraid you don't seem to fully understand the issues here. Having admin tools is a major responsibility here, and those privileges can only be used in ways that are, by design of community consensus, highly constrained. The admin in the present case, who has been long absent from the project and got his tools at a much earlier time in this project's development, has shown highly questionable judgement in the use of those tools and then has compounded this by being almost completely unresponsive the community's concerns, and seeming to have an insufficiently clear understanding of what the problems with their conduct are. The community has to look into such issues, but it's not a punitive inquiry in any sense: notice that the discussion is focused on the loss of the problematic tools, and not a block or any other such sanction.

All of that said, I hope you continue to embrace a compassionate and sympathetic approach to your interactions on the project, should you stay with us. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector and Snow Rise: Other arbitrators haven't weighed in on this, but I'd recommend that the best way forward here is that someone submits a case request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe Twitbookspacetube previously expressed a willingness to attend to that, if further sufficient engagement from Winhunter was not forthcoming. I'm a less than ideal choice, given my availability over the next couple of weeks, but if Twitbookspacetube has reconsidered and no one else is available--or if someone feels strongly that I'm the most appropriate person, having made the initial proposal-- I'll try to find the time for a bare bones filing. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at this precise moment, but I'll take a look through this quagmire and put something together. Twitbookspacetube 04:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Twitbookspacetube; given the user's general lack of activity, I wouldn't call it a pressing issue, but I nevertheless appreciate that someone is willing to file the matter with ArbCom at least somewhat contemporaneous with the closing of this discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. As I said I'm disinclined to file a case request myself beyond a summary "the community requests a case" sort of thing, and won't have time anyway in the next few days to a week or so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The case is so filed at [14]. Twitbookspacetube 03:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Attack page?

Would User:Morty C-137/SPI-Case be considered an attack page? I was under the impression that accusations of sockpuppetry should be confined to WP:SPI.

Recent reports regarding Morty C-137:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Morty C-137: Battleground attitude, personal attacks and edit warring.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive343#User:Morty C-137 and User:Rjensen reported by User:Cjhard (Result: Warned)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive342#User:Pepe.is.great and User:Morty C-137 reported by User:KDS4444 (Result: Warned)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#Morty C-137

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has already been had by administators and answered, and I consider Guy Macon's filing here to be in obvious bad faith. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Where did this admin discussion occur? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been attacked over and over [15] and I have every right to keep records given that we are "required to give evidence". Morty C-137 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. Where has an admin told you this page is OK? This page has been up for over a month with no SPI case filed. We can't keep pages like this around, per WP:POLEMIC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I just linked a diff for you above. Take it up with them. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Since Morty's decide to revert the blanking, I've deleted the page per WP:POLEMIC. These type of pages cannot be left around for long periods of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that proves this whole listing is in bad faith, since you gave me no actual chance to save the material offline and you're ignoring policy. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I've undeleted for 10 minutes so you can copy everything. Then it's getting deleted again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm lucky I saw that at the 9th minute, such a "generous" amount of time. What a load of harassing crap. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

May I interject here? Morty C-137 none of those users nor an admin EVER said that you could do that. Dinah In Wonderland 19:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Seconding this. It's possible Morty linked to the wrong diff, of course. If you're collecting evidence in this manner, it's best to do it off wiki. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Two things here. A quick look through Cjhard's (very short) edit summary:

1. It screams "sock puppet" of the sleeper kind. The account has only approx. 815 edits but extensive knowledge not only of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but it's internal politics, feuds, obscure cases and ANI reports (examples [16]. It made 16 edits in 2007, 8 edits in 2008, 4 edits in 2009, 4 in 2011, 3 in 2012 and then... it "woke up" and exploded with several hundred edits starting in May of this year. And a lot of these involve following and reverting Morty around - there's no freakin' way this is a legit account.
2. It's immediately obvious that the account HAS in fact been following and harassing Morty.

It's hard to tell who the sock master here is but at least this account looks like one of the socks of the same person.

I can easily see why Morty is frustrated here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, do it at SPI. Doing it here, incorrectly, without evidence, and without having the courtesy of pinging me in a conversation I hadn't already been made aware of, is an unacceptable personal attack. Honestly, I'm getting tired of it from Morty, and my tolerance for it is waning. Cjhard (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Better yet, provide your input to the SPI case Morty finally opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard. Cjhard (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If User:Morty C-137 doesn't understand why his behavior (both in maintaining a page full of un-substantiated attacks on wiki, and his recent contributions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) is problematic, administrative action against him should be considered. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

AFAICT there's no "problematic" behavior at RN/B, which, incidentally, is not a discussion you yourself participated in. As far as I can tell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I've commented on it now, though I'm not sure what your remark regarding my lack of participation is supposed to imply. I hope that, after the fourth invocation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he will let the discussion die on its own; it hasn't been about "Reliable Sources" for quite some time. That said, it's not actionable; as the SPI case is filed and the attack page is blanked, hopefully an admin can close this soon. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• (copy of recent post to WP:REFUND): This page is covered both by WP:POLEMIC (a policy), and WP:CSD#G10 (a speedy deletion criterion that references WP:ATP, a slightly different but essentially similar policy page). I referenced the first policy in the deletion log, kind of assuming the link to G10 was clear, but if that's too lazy and if it helps in dotting the i's and crossing the t's, consider it deleted per WP:CSD#G10. We generally haven't considered short-term compilation of evidence an attack page, but they aren't allowed to linger in user space for a long time; in this case over a month, plus a week since its undeletion. From WP:ATP: "keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". If it's going to take a long time to compile evidence, that should be done offline. Morty now has this material offline if he chooses to use it. If an admin thinks WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP doesn't apply here, they can certainly undelete (I'll say as much at ANI in a moment). Or ditto if Morty wants to take it to WP:DELREV instead. But it pretty clearly qualifies to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC) (end of copy)

I'm not preventing Morty from continuing to compile evidence, I'm not preventing him from filing an SPI, I'm not claiming Sjhard is or isn't a sock, and I'm not Morty's enemies' newest buddy. But my experience has been that we enforce WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP like this all the time. I even tried to blank it instead of delete it, and was immediately reverted. Again, if any admin thinks undeletion is warranted and WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP doesn't apply, please feel free to undelete. Now I've been told I'm a stuck up jerk, that I'm someone's pet admin, and that I am intentionally harassing Morty, and I still temporarily undeleted the page for Monty to copy the contents, and I've explained myself sufficiently to satisfy WP:ADMINACCT. I've had more than enough, so I'm disengaging now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Whether the page in question should be deleted or not is subject to the usual administrative rules and guidelines (though I've seen other people do similar, just in a but less transparent way and get away with it). My point rather is that Morty's action were understandable and importantly, that this ANI report is completely pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I apologize for the jerk comment. That being said, I am frustrated because (a) the last person to blank that page was a freaking sockpuppet of a stalker and (b) you didn't explain ANYTHING of your blanking, followed by just up and deleting it when I reverted and tried to add the newest sockpuppet to the list. How the hell was I supposed to know what you were up to when you were too lazy to give an explanation? Morty C-137 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Could be a sock puppet. Nothing has been proven yet. --Tarage (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I learned today that this user filed a false allegation of sockpuppetry against me. It's certainly "Not Here" behavior. It needs to be stopped either on its own or by a hasty door showing. The attack page is a symptom of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no shortage of symptoms; the repeated assumption/leap to accuse other users above (including intervening admins) of "harassment" demonstrates A) a pretty profound lack of understanding of basic process (which can always be remedied with experience) and B) a more fundamental sense of persecution and refusal to WP:AGF (which is more problematic). We already see enough users show up here on a revolving door basis who are convinced that any time their wishes are thwarted or their behaviour questioned, it is a form of harassment. Best to disabuse this notion early, before it progresses to the conspiracy theory stage and truly disruptive discussions that usually follow. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Dheyward ran right in after someone was blocked. The Clerk on the case admitted "I can see why it looks suspicious." But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There are two sets of sockpuppets attacking Morty. The earliest one is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive A second set is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.Pearson/Archive. I'll quote Bbb23, who is sadly now inactive here: " I can see the confusion because of the usernames, all the pepes and earsons, but they are separate masters editing from different continents and using different other technical data. I don't know why this person is mimicking the other.-" That is my finding also. Two different continents but the later one is mimicking the earlier. I have my own thoughts on this but need to ponder on the evidence a bit longer. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Holy mother of WP:IDHT; you really need to stop assuming (and vocally asserting) that everyone who questions you is out to get you, and listen to what the experienced admins and users here are trying to tell you. A few things relating to your last couple of posts:

A) I wasn't commenting on Dheyward's assertions, but rather pointing to your behaviour above of attacking every administrator who takes action to keep you from trampling on policy. I don't see how I am "roundly misrepresenting" anything by pointing out that this is an incredibly self-defeating strategy.

B) You have so selectively quoted mz7's comments in the SPI that you opened against DHeyward (and mischaracterized their role in the SPI) so as to have essentially reversed the conclusion they came to. Here's the full quote, with the context you omitted: "I am not an SPI clerk, but for what it's worth, I agree that the reverts alone are insufficient evidence. I can see why it looks suspicious, but DHeyward is a longstanding editor (created in 2005), and the Doorzki account is not exactly new either (created in 2012). If these were single-purpose accounts with no other edits besides these reverts, we would probably call it a WP:DUCK. However, that's not the case here: both editors have coexisted for a while now without drawing suspicion of sockpuppetry. Given this, I would need to see more evidence of interaction between these accounts or other idiosyncratic behavior (e.g. similar writing style/editing philosophies) before blocking or even recommending CheckUser in this case."

C) Your latest SPI is an absolute nightmare of disorganized non-cogent accusations and non-contexualized links. Moreover, you clearly knew what you were adding to that page, because this was your edit summary for your second edit: "Fuck it. I was trying to get my head wrapped round it and was going to start paring things down and reformatting, but since I got harassed today and told "use it or lose it", it's up. Have fun, whoever.". Uhh, no. That's not how this works. If you want the community to take your accusations seriously, the responsibility is on you to make the argument in a structured and intelligible fashion. It is not the community's responsibility to go digging through that mess of gibberish to make heads or tales of which of the dozens of editors you accuse might actually be a sock, just because you still wanted to open another SPI but you were also angry and wanted to make a statement about your attack page being closed.

You need to take a pause for the cause here, because at ANI we look at the behaviour of all involved parties, even once we've established that one of them is problematic. It will do you no good at all to identify a sock who may or may not be harassing you if, in the course of trying to make your case, you demonstrate a profound inability to contribute to the project yourself without accusing every good-faith contributor and admin you come across of being in on the harassment, and just generally demonstrating a highly WP:disruptive attitude. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#User:Morty_C-137/SPI-Case (2nd request). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Really, this user has been here for 4 months[17] and he has an enemies and sock accusation list. Not since Psycho in the movie Stripes has someone created a death list so quickly. It's hardly the type of activity new users find themselves embroiled in and arguing about. It's about time to call this one as an obviously returning editor. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering his SPI against Cjhard is failing(unsurprisingly), I think we need to start limiting the amount of accusations Morty is allowed to toss around. Yes, it is unfortunate that he has been the target of two sock puppet editors, but that is no excuse for slinging accusations at everyone and hoping some stick. --Tarage (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the SPI is as much as done; the CU found no relationship between Cjhard and any of the other editors. I'm actually pretty shocked jpgordon decided to run a CU in that situation at all, but perhaps they recognized it may prove necessary to refer back to that SPI as fruitless. In light of the polemic/attack page, the recurrent fruitless SPIs, the constant assumption of bad faith and unsubstantiated claims of harassment (particularly the accusations against Guy Macon and Floquenbeam above), and just the generally WP:battleground and WP:disruptive attitude this user is bringing into every space they enter into, I'm fully prepared to support restrictions of some sort--a topic ban from SPI in particular. Frankly, at this point, it's beginning to feel less like IDHT and more like "I will never hear that", but the smallest targeted restrictions should be considered first. I definitely think something needs to be done though; this is a whole lot of drama for the community to have to contend with to indulge for a user who has been around for four months and spends half of their time grinding axes; harassment from socks gets one a certain amount of sympathy, but this user is primed to see foes no matter the circumstances. Morty either needs to learn what is an acceptable claim of harassment or, as has been suggested above, he will have to be shown the door. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has a history of sanctioning editors when they respond poorly to harassment. Some of this is unavoidable, but I still think we need to come up with a better approach. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how responding poorly to harassment by another editor gives Morty C-137 a free pass to abuse multiple editors who had no part in any harassment.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Morty C-137, given the wide variety of editors who you have accused of harassing you and acting in bad faith, could it be possible that the problem is you?

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon presents a heck of a Gish Gallop, but none of those diffs show what he is saying, with the exception of one edit that I've already apologized for. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Respectfully NRP, multiple admins have attempted to approach this user with kids gloves only to be told to stop "harassing" him. I wasn't suggesting a block, but rather trying to isolate them from areas they don't seem yet competent to handle--areas in which they are currently sinking a lot of time into, and which are the nexus of all of the issues they are having with just about everyone they seem to be interacting with on the project now.

The smallest and most targeted sanction I could think of is a topic ban from SPI complaints, appeal-able in a few months once they have enough experience to know what really looks like suspicious activity, under this community's standards--not just the criteria of anyone who disagrees with them ever, on any article. Though, if I'm frank, it's the refusal to AGF / general hostility to anyone thwarting their will that is the real problem. If you think you can reach them, short of that sort of thing becoming a necessity, by all means have at it. But I'll direct you to the above, and this user's talk page, where numerous notably patient admins and veteran community members have tried. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Whilst dealing with true harassment is something we need to do much better, dealing with tactical (or misguided) cries of harassment based on a simple disagreement or failure to gain consensus is something we do poorly too. CRYHARASS can be similar to CRYBLP: a diversion from the underlying issue by appeal to the authority of an inapplicable generality which deliberately invokes strong reactions. Both of these are gaming tactics, and, historically, we've not dealt particularly well with that, either. NRP makes a good point, but, as you say, the issues are wide and nuanced. -- Begoon 10:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I think what’s clear is that since his block Morty C-137’s conduct hasn’t improved since his first block. His behaviour on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a great example of his personal attacks, tendentiousness and battlefield behaviour continuing unabated. His presence is almost inevitably disruptive in any political topic he engages with and his temperament appears to be inherently compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. A series of increasingly long bans ending in retirement or an indefinite ban appears inevitable. However, Morty’s work on articles related to Rick and Morty suggests that he is able to contribute to the project positively in areas which require less collaboration and are less politically charged. The optimist in me would suggest that a topic ban on all political topics along with a sanction against making any personal attacks (specifically accusations of wrongdoing without evidence and/or outside the proper channels) might prevent his negative behaviour while retaining him as an editor. Cjhard (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest a short block for incivility and not assuming good faith, followed by longer and longer blocks until he either gets the point or is blocked indefinitely. His behavior has completely disrupted what would have otherwise been a calm, rational discussion on RSNB about whether a particular source, previously reliable, has become unreliable. This is interfering with the operation of the encyclopedia. I am agnostic on the politics topic ban, not having examined his behavior in that area. --Guy Macon (talk)09:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue his behaviour on RSNB is an example of his behaviour in the politics topic, given the nature of the sources discussed and what they're being used for. Cjhard (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that, as a party, jumping on some sort of perceived bandwagon might not be the best thing for you to do here. Despite the very poor SPI, people may still have questions. Your last couple of posts have not helped to convince me that you don't deserve deep scrutiny, yourself. -- Begoon 12:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Morty's disruptive behavior and personal attacks? A Morty-free encyclopedia has a lot less drama overhead. Threatening his victims doesn't solve the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

DARVO. Those who have been through abusive situations recognize this sort of behavior when someone tries it on them. I've done nothing to warrant the torrent of abuse you've heaped on me, I legitimately saw something weird in a pattern of edits and reported it. You've been page hopping for the past couple days insulting me and trying to get me "banned" while calling me things like "ban-boy" and it needs to stop. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No Morty. I've followed you to admin pages where you are abusing other editors including me. It needs to stop. Your behavior is deplorable and your accusations lack merit. I've not sought you out or even knew you existed until someone pointed out your merit-less SPI accusation in an apparent attempt to get me sanctioned and I learned that I was one of many. I have done nothing but point at your poor behavior. It's incompatible with Wikipedia. I have not started any ANI/SPI/3RR or any other process against you but that seems to be your sole contributions as there are at least 4 open ones about you. Your familiarity with these avenues, your long list of "bad users" and attitude suggest this isn't your first rodeo. I personally find that those that see sockpuppets at every turn are often the worse sock puppeteers and is why they think a torrent of socks are out to get them. --DHeyward (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that DHeyward has now begun stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry. [29][30] [31] Morty C-137 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"[32] --Monty Python and the Holy Grail

According to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." DHeyward appears to be simply correcting related problems on multiple articles that you have edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

Repeat: to repeatedly confront... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Dheyward has never edited those pages before - they were following me in hopes of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If these edits you cited [33] [34] annoyed you, you are in the wrong place. You called them reverts when in fact your exact text and citation were retained. You didn't bother to check that the source and content were duplicated. --DHeyward (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137, it appears that pretty much everything causes you "irritation, annoyance or distress", including the most innocuous of edits. Right now it looks like you are heading toward an indefinite block, and your continued claims of harassment and bad faith are making that block more likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive commentary by LynnWysong, lashing out at an editor she has a beef with, but irrelevant to this discussion, even if she unhats this, again. LynnWysong: You're rapidly putting yourself into a place where other editors are going to start considering you a net negative to the project if you keep inserting yourself into discussions you know nothing about, merely to slag off one of the editors you've taken a dislike to. My advice is to knock it off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know if anyone's opinion here is influenced by this. Seems like whether or not keeping a page like this, the real issue here, is okay, depends on who you are. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC) I don't know Morty C-137, but what I see here is that he/she was brought here because they were keeping a page to prepare for an SPI. In the edit summary they provided, they were told that they shouldn't keep it more than six months without taking action. That forced him to file an SPI before it was ready. Now, he's being accused by the object of the SPI of having brought the accusation here instead of at SPI in the first place. Uh, no, he didn't. And now, he's being told that since he made that accusation, his own behavior is under review. In the meantime, a couple of years ago, an established editor was keeping a similar page. When it was pegged for deletion, the community rallied to her side. This is hypocrisy at it most pathological. If what Guy Macon (talk · contribs) was really upset about was the editor's behavior at other articles, that's what this ANI should have been about. Right now it looks like a bait and switch. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) This is just wrong on so many levels...first, Montanabw's page had only been there for two months, it was supplementing an active SPA of a LTA, and it was moved away to WP space once people noticed it and MfD'd it. Second, Morty didn't have to file the SPI at that time, he could have easily kept this stuff off-wiki as suggested by the deleting admin and others until he was ready (not that it would have affected the outcome; baseless accusations are just that no matter how polished). Third, Cjhard was telling Volunteer Marek to take the accusations to the SPI, not Morty. And fourth, there's no "whistleblower protection" here, per WP:BOOMERANG; everyone's behavior is scrutinized. ansh666 02:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC) But, didn't it say that Morty's page had only been there for one month? Yes, he could have, and, upon having not had his hand called, he may have not filed it all. Ah. I misunderstood How does WP:BOOMERANG apply when then the person supposedly being boomeranged didn't bring the action? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Lynn, I don't even know where to start. To begin with, most of the commentary here has nothing to do with the WP:POLEMIC page (which Floquenbeam was completely within their administrative prerogative to remove, regardless) but rather about their generally comabative and hostile attitude towards criticism in general, whatever the context and space it occurs in. Second, so you managed to dig up one occasion, from years ago, in which a similar page was retained? So what? I think you should read WP:OTHERSTUFF (even if it is just an essay); or better yet confirmation bias, because while that one page may have been retained (for a very short time) on the basis of a "no consensus" result, the standard approach on this project, applied time and time again, is to not allow such evidence to be compiled and stored longterm. There's an unambiguous policy about this: WP:POLEMIC, in case you've missed it the dozen or so times it's been cited here already. It doesn't matter if, once upon a time, in one discussion, the community failed to uphold that policy (or decided under the facts of those circumstances that it was appropriate)--that's not a reason for doing so again here. Meanwhile your argument that deleting that policy-violating page "forced Morty to file an SPI prematurely" makes absolutely zero sense. No one put a clock on Morty and no one tried to (or realistically could) prevent Morty from compiling his evidence offline, if he felt that was a worthwhile use of his time. He was simply prevented from hosting the information in his user space. Again, per policy. Certainly no one encouraged Morty to file any one of those SPIs without proper merit or evidence (other than "they got in my away, why else would they do that if they weren't out to get me?"). Lastly, I don't really care what Guy's other concerns with the user were and which issue he should have raised first, according to you. The community members who have responded here are all discussing what they perceive to be a complex of issues with this user, but all of them going back to a short fuse and an inability to have their actions questions or their will thwarted without lashing out with accusations of "harassment". And frankly, your off-base argument that they are being singled out or treated differently from other members of the community (when almost all longterm POLEMIC pages are deleted upon discovery) is not going to help this user correct course, but only encourage them to turtle up further into the comforting assumption that they are being persecuted. Snow let's rap 02:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC) I'm just bringing up what I see to be a true flaw with ANI, which is that it never seems to deal with the issue at hand. (edit) The editor was brought here ostensibly for keeping a page against policy, and he/she is being threatened with a boomerang, when they didn't bring the action. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Until Ansh's response to you above, WP:BOOMERANG wasn't mentioned once, and nobody is being "threatened" with anything. The user's conduct is being examined. There is no prohibition here against noting relevant problematic behaviours just because they happen to not be the focus of the OP's original comments; that would make zero pragmatic sense for this space. Certainly the community is not required to turn a blind eye to an issue that is explicitly on display in the ANI itself. Snow let's rap 02:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Unlike what many people assume, BOOMERANG doesn't just apply to the filer of a case (or whatever the applicable metaphor is), it applies to everyone involved. (oh, I see - I wasn't addressing Morty specifically on that last point, just speaking generally) ansh666 03:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "And frankly, your off-base argument that they are being singled out or treated differently from other members of the community (when almost all longterm POLEMIC pages are deleted upon discovery) is not going to help this user correct course, but only encourage them to turtle up further into the comforting assumption that they are being persecuted." I don't think that doing a bait and switch at ANI, bringing up a minor problem-a POLEMIC page that had only been up for a month when others are not only allowed to stay longer but even defended, and then switching to what "the community" perceives as the real problem, helps with a feeling of persecution either. Also, he's being taken to task for filing SPIs, that don't appear to be entirely frivolous or vindictive. In my experience, discouraging filing SPIs when someone thinks they have legitimate cause will lead to much worse behavior. Believe me, I've been the victim of it, so I'm coming from a different perspective here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is thoroughly off the rails. I request an un-involved admin close it with no action against any editors. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the template from {{hat}} to {{cot}} to prevent edit warring. But hopefully off-topic discussions can stop here. Alex Shih^Talk 04:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, with Lynn's divergence being now hatted, I must disagree with your description of the discussion and with your recommendation. There are real and substantial issues still being addressed here, and (Lynn aside) all of the community members who have responded to this thread are roughly of the same mind that the behaviour in question is problematic (even if no clear solution / response from the community has been proposed). Morty has responded to every halfway critical appraisal of his actions with cries of "harassment", even while under community scrutiny and while responding to admin directives here at ANI. If he's willing to shout accusations in the faces of admins trying to restrain him, how can we reasonably believe he's about to change his approach when dealing with the rank and file in disputes on some random article--especially the highly charged socio-political ones he favours? I don't see the point in closing this thread when it's virtually certain the user will be back here at ANI or back spamming SPI before we can blink. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Off topic Show me an ANI thread with this much activity that wasn't off the rails after 36 hours. I'd honestly like to know what that looks like. Absent some kind of ground rules, firmly enforced, there aren't any rails to be off of. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

My point also. The ANI was filed in response to what was called an "Attack Page". Now, I didn't see the page, and I don't know if there was anything on it that could be termed an "attack" rather than part of compiling an SPI case, but it sounds like that was what it was, and that it wasn't a frivolous case, as per Volunteer Marek. "Not frivolous" as opposed to "valid"...I'm not making judgements on the validity of Morty's suspicions, but it does seem to me that he was doing what he was supposed to do when one has suspicions of socking, and that is to file an SPI. Sounds like he filed a couple, ended up with egg on his face, and was being more cautious with the third, when all of a sudden his hand is forced. So, he files the SPI in response to that, and now he's being attacked himself on all fronts, for one being accused of "spamming" SPI. This is the problem with ANI. This thread went off the rails as soon as it stopped being about the "Attack Page" and whether or not it was okay to have it. Which means it went off the rails in lines 2-5 of the thread, when Guy Macon started bringing up the recent ANIs that had been brought against Morty. And, as to how long one should be allowed to maintain a page of difs related to sockpuppet suspicions, what is the "timely manner" (quote from policy) in which it should be used? The answers are: "It depends on whether or not you've recently been brought to ANI" and/or "It depends on what editor is keeping them, and who they are keeping them on," neither of which is an objective, rationale response that is going to diffuse an editor that is already feeling persecuted.

So yes, this should be closed without action. If another ANI is opened, there should first be a perusal of Robert's Rules of Order by all parties. The dogpile method that ANI currently uses is not just dysfunctional, it's something out of Lord of the Flies. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard has now been closed: "Checkuser finds nothing interesting connecting Cjhard with any of these accounts or with any problematic accounts at all."

Meanwhile, the previously listed problem behavior ([35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]) has continued with [46][47][48][49].

There is a broad consensus that the behavior of Morty C-137 is problematic. Everyone who criticizes Morty C-137 in any way is accused of bad faith, harassment, or sockpuppetry. If this is closed without administrative action, someone will open a new report when the behavior continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A Proposal

Morty C-137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now editing 2017 Unite the Right rally, and while he has managed to technically avoid violating 3RR (because some of his reverts are of obvious vandalism), editing that page at all during this discussion is a sign of incredibly poor judgment on his part. As a friendly offer to him, I suggest that he voluntarily agree to a post-1932 American Politics TBAN for the next month. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I note that I can't promise that other editors will consider this sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And I note that I think that the object of the ANI has been met, which was to address the "Attack Page." It's gone. But you're right, he probably should walk away from articles like that for a while (why 1932?). I, for one, wouldn't touch one of those types of articles with a 10 foot pole (My focus is on the fur trade and nice, un-contentious articles about horses Oh, wait) My observation is that anyone who does edit those ends up getting regularly brought to ANI and blocked. Just part of the whole "encyclopedia anyone can edit" scenario. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Have I made any bad edits on that page? Can you point to any? I'm willing to bet you can't. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not the right response Morty. He didn't say you made questionable edits, but that your editing the page was questionable. You need to walk away from all this for a while. Believe me, I know what it feels like to be dogpiled, and that's why I took hits here calling that out, but if you don't settle down you're going to be right back here and it will probably be for the right reasons next time. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no "right response", ever. No matter what policy is complied with, there's another contradictory policy. Trying to report harassment results in more threats; filing quickly when there are likely sockpuppets gets attacked, trying to put it all together to get it right gets attacked the same way. Whatever I say, whatever I do, someone with an agenda will twist it and misrepresent it in some way. They won't do shit about people who hunt me page to page, they won't do shit about the people constantly making new accounts to harass me, but they'll go after me nonstop. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And your belief that is the case is a good reason for the proposed TBAN. Your non-political edits seem to be stress free for you but your political edits have you seeing boogeymen at every turn. That's a problem for all of us much more than any problems you are dealng with. --DHeyward (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And there's a reason someone who stalked my edits trying to irritate me will have no impact on my opinion. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's OK. Being blocked from editing Wikipedia has been show to be an effective method for impacting the opinion of editors like you.

You are claiming that it's always someone else, never you. For some inexplicable reason dozens of people who don't know each other have somehow gotten together and decided to harass poor, innocent you, while the vast majority of editors get along fine with everyone else.

The fact of the matter is that we do care about those who legitimately harass you, and we are putting in our absolute best effort to identify them and stop them from posting to Wikipedia. But none of that changes the fact that your behavior is a problem as well.

Here are some diffs. Study them, and identify the things that you are doing that others here are not doing. Then stop doing those things.

• "Bullshit and WP:WEASEL words"[50]
• "The repeated dishonesty ... just designed to try to irritate and provoke "[51]
• "Rudely and dishonestly misrepresenting ... false accusation"[52]
• "Fraudulent ... in bad faith"[53]
• "Obvious bad faith"[54]
• "Inappropriate and done in a manner calculated to harass."[55]
• "That proves this whole listing is in bad faith"[56]
• "You'd prefer to beat me up. Now I see why admins are considered suck stuck up jerks on wikipedia."[57]
• "What a load of harassing crap."[58]
• "Go away. You know you only posted that garbage to harass me."[59]
• "But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything."[60]
• "Not sure what game you're playing or if you just decided you hate my guts for some reason."[61]
• "Such a sad individual."[62]
• "So many personal attacks."[63]
• "Stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry."[64].

Free clue: The thing you keep doing that is pissing everyone else off involves accusing others of harassment, accusing others of bad faith, and in general acting like a total jerk.

I propose a short block for the above behavior, followed by longer and longer blocks if he keeps doing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I know full well you decided you hate me and want me blocked, and you won't shut up nor stop misrepresenting my edits till you get your way. Such as your rank mischaracterization of when I noted the many personal attacks from DHeyward after he launched a flurry of them including calling me "ban-boy". Morty C-137 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, bad behavior (real or imaginary) by others does not excuse your behavior. If you think that either I or DHeyward have misbehaved, file an ANI report with diffs supporting your claims. Your continued assertions that it is never you, always someone else are making it more likely that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137, your post right above is an example of the behavior Guy was pointing out. It probably isn't really helpful to your cause. May I suggest you consider moderating your behavior some? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I've already posted the diffs here. LynnWysong was right about one thing, Guy Macon posted this just to cause a dogpile because this board isn't for resolving things, it's for a bunch of vultures to get their fill ripping into victims and engaging in DARVO. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Votes on action against Morty C-137

• Support short block Enough of this. This has wasted way too much time and the editor, even after a failed malformed SPI, still doesn't get it. --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support short block as a minimum option to deal with Morty. Hopefully it'll cause him to look at the criticism he's received here and correct his behaviour, but his levels of IDHT are through the roof, so the more likely outcome is that he will add this to his list of grievances by the harrassers at Wikipedia and we'll be back here when he resumes editing. Cjhard (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Then what's the point? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I also support a topic ban on political topics as a measure which might be more effective in preventing Morty's disruptive behaviour in the long term. Cjhard (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• OpposeThis ANI has been a cluster. The fact that it started by characterizing Morty's draft SPI report as an "Attack Page" fatally flawed it from the beginning. Process should mean something. Even if you have to let someone off the hook that probably doesn't deserve it, you can't use flawed process to justify retribution. Let's piece the conch back together and do make people do it right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion on the "draft SPI report"

Of course it was an attack page. It was (quite properly) deleted under WP:CSD#G10 and undeletion was declined at deletion review. Read WP:POLEMIC: "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used..." or read WP:ATP, which says "keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "...the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted." Compiling evidence for an SPI is a legitimate action, and should not be termed an "Attack Page". The key words there are "timely manner" and "imminently." That should have been the focus of the ANI, unless there were things on there that didn't apply to the ANI. I don't know, and you didn't provide difs of any, instead you brought up his past ANIs. Not right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Why do you keep insisting (although everyone else here keeps telling you otherwise) that it is somehow "inappropriate" to bring up multiple issues about a problematic user? This isn't a court case, nor is Wikipedia a bureaucracy. And Guy didn't pull any kind of "bait and switch" as you've implied repeatedly above. He brought an initial issue here, which could have been resolved quickly, except for the fact that Morty instead chose to accuse every admin and community member here who tried to get them to what was wrong with their approach of harassment. That is what lead to community looking into the broader issues with this user's conduct, insofar as I can tell from the above. Your insistence that Guy did something wrong or that the other community members here are acting inappropriately by no turning a blind eye to clearly problematic behaviours that were not mentioned by the OP has no basis in policy or community consensus and is, frankly, nonsensical. I appreciate that you identify with this user's aggravation and also that you don't have a high impression of Guy, but I don't think you're keeping proper perspective here and you're out on a limb as a result. Snow let's rap 04:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC) I have no impression of Guy at all, other than that I think he set up this ANI in an unfair manner. And, the fact that I am "out on a limb" for providing a dissenting opinion here is yet another indication of why this process is so dysfunctional. No, ANI is not a court, but it would serve the community much better if some ground rules, based on common court procedures, were established, rather than the free-for-all it currently is. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Well of all of the possible pro forma adjustments to the approach of ANI that you might suggest, the recommendation that we refuse to address behavioural problems not raised in the original post is pretty close to single most non-pragamtic and counter-intuitive suggestion you could make, and not one I think you will ever generate much support for, for that very reason. Snow let's rap 17:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Too bad. Because that is why ANI discussions constantly derail, resulting in bad decisions that don't resolve the issue at hand. I'm not saying that behavior can't be an exacerbating factor in a case, but in this case, the discuss veered so off-course the proposed "prevention of disruption" doesn't even fit the issue brought to ANI, and that is that Morty was planning another SPI report in the wake of two that were bad choices of action. So, the logical consequence would be to ban him from filing any more SPI's, but that doesn't seem necessary anymore, so, I guess the "community" has to find some other way to justify all this. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support both block and TBAN - As a pending changes reviewer, I am witnessing the reversions made on Jenny McCarthy in opposition to Morty's acts. A temporary block will stop D.Pearson's hatred, while the topic ban will prevent further attacks. I also recommend page protection for any affected articles that Pearson is attacking Morty on, including the one I mentioned. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion regarding socks

O.M.G. You mean the reversions made by BanMorty (talk · contribs) and MortyKillYourself (talk · contribs)??????!!!!!!! No wonder the guy's got a huge chip on his shoulder. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Yes, but do notice that both of those uers has been already blocked. This community has done, and will continue to do, what it can to shield Morty from this trolling. What it cannot and will not do is allow Morty to see a foe (and then pursue them as such) in every person he comes across who questions his generally bombastic approach, for purely good-faith reasons. What would you have us do, block everyone he suspects of being a sock? Or just let him file SPI after SPI against longterm good-faith contributors, simply because they reverted him on an article that happens to be one of those where he has clashed with his troll? This user needs to learn that WP:DUCK ≠ "person who criticized me". Until they learn and internalize community standards on such things, it's hard to see any alternative to restraining their contributions. Snow let's rap 03:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Snow RiseI am simply pointing out that there are mitigating circumstances here. The guy is under attack and isn't dealing with it well. He was accused of seeing "socks everywhere" when in reality, there are socks everywhere. He filed a couple of un-advisable SPI's, (but I don't think they were entirely frivolous-it does sound like he had a reason to believe there was socking involved) and seemed to be realizing he needed to be more methodical if he did another one, hence the "Attack Page". He's like a high strung dog that was attacked by a pack of coyotes, when the other dogs came into help him he was so worked up that he couldn't tell friend from foe. He may have continued to calm down but what happens? He gets dragged here under the auspices that his more methodical manner of dealing with socks is an "Attack Page". Yes, the difs provided by Guy are concerning, and those are what he should be taken to task for. But that issue has been so buried in the red herring of the "attack page" that right now, any block or topic ban is probably not going to send the right message, and would instead seem arbitrary and capricious. That is why process is important here. This idea of "well, we can't really punish you for what you were brought here for so we'll find something else to punish you for is, in my mind, the sign of a "community" devolving into anarchy. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC) You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what this place is for and what the goals of the community are in a situation like this: no one is here to "punish" Morty, the goal is is prevent further disruption. Would it be nice if we could do that short of restricting his participation on the project? Of course. But multiple admins and community volunteers tried that approach, only to be told they were "clearly out to get/smeer/misrepresent/troll/harass" Morty, or something similar, all while the editor continues to exhibit problematic behaviours in both mainspace and in community spaces and on procedural pages. And I'm sorry, but your argument that if he had just been left in peace to plan his attack page, everything would have turned out rainbows and sunshine does not track for me, to put it mildly. Nor is the fact that a troll amped him up excuse for his lashing out at everyone else; we need our editors to show a more baseline level of restraint than that. And I think it's just plain histrionic to suggest that this project is "descending into anarchy" because the community has decided to do something about this situation; insisting that our editors comport with just the most very basic and essential provisions of our community behavioural guidelines is the opposite of anarchy. And like most community sanctions, Morty will be able to appeal any topic ban after a time, once he can demonstrate a period of non-disruptive editing and identify what went wrong here (without alluding to alleged harassment by the community). Snow let's rap 17:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Now you're putting words in my mouth and twisting what I said, which means this discussion, like this whole Action, has devolved into a hopeless mess. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support either or both short block and topic ban. Morty C-137 has clearly indicated that he will not stop his disruptive behavior unless forced to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support block and AP2 topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support short-term block and (especially) topic ban from AP2 topics. The IDHT is off the charts here and Morty seems incapable of distinguishing community concerns from genuine harassment. In my opinion the troll who has pestered him (presumably after locking horns with him on some article or another) has only exacerbated an underlying and pronounced difficulty with the collaborative process that seems to be fundamental to Morty's approach on this project. In other words, I'm quite certain that Morty's battleground attitude is a feature of his general attitude while editing here, and that it has been (and will continue to be) present, even in the absence of any kind of actual provocation. A preventative block to temporarily disengage him from his current feuds, combined with removing him from the especially contentious areas until he has demonstrated an understanding of our behavioural standards stands the best chance of forestalling further attacks on passers-by. Personally I would have started with a much more narrow ban from SPI, but the AP2 topic ban being the one put forward, I can support it without qualms. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of some kind, no opinion on a possible block. I think that a tban from SPI (broadly construed to prevent Morty from throwing about these blanket accusations regarding others being socks in general - we're smart enough to be able to get rid of the two sockfarms when they pop up) would be better than a tban from AP2, but if that's the consensus there's no opposition from me. ansh666 05:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - both block and TBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for Snow Close

It is clear that there is community consensus for a short block followed by a topic ban.

I propose that this report be closed with a short block followed by a six month topic ban from filing new sock puppet investigations and from all edits about and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed. This should be accompanied by a warning about accusing other editors of harassment or bad faith, and an explanation that any further accusations should be in the form of ANI reports, not inline comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not as a WP:SNOW close. However, I do support your proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a block, that would purely be punitive; TBAN is another thing. By the way, any admins thinking of closing this might want to first examine the rev-del'd edits a few minutes ago to this section. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A block would not be punitive if the behavior is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

...Which opens up a golden opportunity for User:Morty C-137. Are you listening Morty? All you have to do is give us the slightest indication that you understand why eight people just supported having you blocked and/or topic banned and indicate that you will make a good-faith effort to change. Pretty much everyone here (including me) would love to close this with "no administrative action required" and move on. Just give us a reason to think that things will change. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Guy, that's good advice, and I've left a note on Morty's talk page urging him to heed it. It doesn't look like he's edited since you left the offer – let's see how he responds before this proceeds further. Mojoworker (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

For those of us who were unable to see the rev-del edits, can you give us some understanding as to how they pertain to this? --Tarage (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a grossly uncivil comment against the editor in question from a likely sock. Alex Shih^Talk 02:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A CU confirmed (by me) sock. There have been two unrelated sets of socks attacking Morty. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive stopped in April. The ones mentioned there in June are part of this set: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.Pearson/Archive. They are definitely unrelated other than the target - the second set is mimicking the first. Except at the beginning, when D.Pearson suddenly appeared to defending Morty and to help him edit war, leading to a possible/inconclusive SPI.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morty C-137/Archive. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There's another one on there right now. So childish. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So is User:Morty C-137 laying low or reappearing in different form after contemplative period? --DHeyward (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's what I've been wondering. Sro23 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe waiting for the next exciting Rick and Morty episode? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:FuzzyCatPotato

FuzzyCatPotato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a member of the Board of Trustees for the RationalMedia Foundation and has blatantly been involved in conflict of interest editing on the RationalWiki article and on other articles by inserting links to RationalWiki, and I fear he is not here to build an encyclopedia. In January 2017, I noticed a link to Rational-Wiki added to Michel Chossudovsky that I thought was inappropriate, so I removed it per WP:BOLD, and left {{uw-coi}} on his talk page. He reacted defensively, reverting @Fyddlestix: and me when we were trying to remove the inappropriate link. He posted on the talk page, which is fine, and consensus was established per WP:BLPEL. Oddly enough, a community-banned RationalWikian troll known as Keegscee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared to interfere in the situation. FuzzyCatPotato once again added a link to Rational-Wiki in July 2017 on the vaginal steaming article. A few days later, I noticed the link and removed it per WP:ELNO but did not notice who added it. I did notice he was the one who posted it when reviewing my own edits in August 2017, so I left an escalated warning template on his talk page about promoting his wiki, following the standard procedure I would follow with any person repeatedly promoting an organization they are affiliated with. FuzzyCatPotato responded extremely defensively and sarcastically, stating "Spamming" I am shaking in my boots, accusing me of being a "Conservapedia editor demanding "respect", implied that he sees this as a war in his edit summary at EL/N, made a blatantly uncivil and disruptive comment on my talk page that he later reverted claiming it was the "wrong website" and later blamed on a friend, and made nonsense edit on his own talk page which he later reverted with the edit summary "fuck off" which is presumably directed at Wikipedians he disagrees with. A large percentage of FuzzyCatPotato's edits are related to Rational-Wiki, he describes his Rational-Wiki account as his "real" account on his user page here, and adding insult to injury is a suspicion of paid editing by @Beetstra:. At least four of the voters in RationalWiki's most recent AfD were affiliated with the website, and if there is ongoing paid editing or meatpuppetry, FuzzyCatPotato is at least involved in it. FuzzyCatPotato's most recent edit was to try and WP:Wikilawyer an excuse for continuing to add R-W links after the matter had previously been discussed, after previously claiming he would not interact with me anymore. I believe FuzzyCatPotato's overall behavior is disruptive and that he should be blocked or banned accordingly. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I am unplugging from the situation and Wikipedia as a whole effective immediately (at least for two weeks) due to summer courses, leaving trust in the community to solve this matter. I invite any Wikipedian to WP:TROUT me should I do otherwise. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, though I would never encourage any editor to remain engaged here when their other obligations are demanding their time, it's less than ideal to make a broad ranging (if apparently actually factually accurate) behavioural complaint against another user and then immediately disengage from the project, since we may require additional information to contextualize and analyze the accusations. If you really cannot edit at all in the next two weeks, I guess that's just where we are at, but I must tell you that it greatly decreases the liklihood that definitive action will be taken to restrain the editor, even if they are genuinely disruptive. It's also not impossible that your own involvement might ome under scrutiny while you are not here to defend your involvement, just to give you a head's up.

That procedural observation made, I do see the problem being raised here with this clearly COI editor. There seems to be a clear lack of perspective and respect for Wikipedia's content standards, where they conflict with what this user considers to be the WP:TRUTH of matters. Of even more concern are the PA's/trolling, particularly where they are at their most WP:BATTLEGROUND, as with this edit, and the following sequence of comments/reversions, no matter the textbook Wikipedia:My little brother did it claim. More digging will be necesary here, but already I am inclined to believe a topic ban may be the minimum required to address the WP:NOTHERE, WP:COI, and WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviours.

An SPI is the next logical step, though, since an indef will be the almost certain result if it turns out that there is a sock party going on here, and there's no point in debating the seriousness of the other behaviours and what sanction should be applied to prevent them, if the indef for abuse of multiple accounts is going to be the ultimate outcome anyway. Since you are the most concerned editor here and the one with the most familiarity with the purported disruption/socking/gaming, I'd encourage you to either put together the basic evidence for the SPI for us to consider--or even file it yourself, if you are confident that there is enough to make the WP:DUCK argument, and assuming you have the time before taking your break. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

My only involvement here was at Michel Chossudovsky - the incident there ([65][66][67][68]), while odd, was eventually resolved and is pretty stale now. These, much more recent edits [69][70] are also pretty odd, but Fuzzy has self-reverted both of them and apologized. So assuming that we AGF and Fuzzy has learned their lesson there (ie, no more letting your friends use your account, no more decidedly un-funny "joke" posts) I'm not sure there's anything to be done there either.

The core of the problem seems to be the - thus far unresolved - question of whether RW can be used as an EL. See two separate ongoing discussions here and here, which (to my surprise) don't seem to have a clear consensus just yet. Personally I'd think it's obvious that RW is wholly inappropriate for use as a source or EL anywhere on wikipedia, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Those discussions should be allowed to conclude and both FuzzyCatPotato and PCHS-NJROTC need to abide by that consensus, whatever the result. Assuming they do that, there should be no further cause/reason for further drama or disruption here. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the prudence of using those links on those articles, if PCHS's concerns about sock/meat puppetry turn out to be verifiable, you can bet there will be blocks. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I was just plain confused by that bit. Where is the evidence? Keegscee is mentioned above but isn't FCP, and it's not surprising that people active on RW would turn up to !vote to keep an article on their own site. A COI issue, sure, but it doesn't mean they're socks. Am I missing something? All I see here so far is innuendo... Fyddlestix (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• The situation is more balanced than may first appear. User:PCHS-NJROTC proclaims the editor is a member of Conservapedia, and has been since 2009. For anyone new here, the folks at Conservapedia and Rational-Wiki have, shall we say, diametrically opposing views. FuzzyCatPotato has a COI which the user acknowledges (example). However, PCHS-NJROTC's campaign to oppose Rational-Wiki has exactly the same COI. I noticed the fuss at a couple of pages on my watchlist and my guess is that FuzzyCatPotato has allowed exasperation to gain the upper hand a couple of times, and that is why a couple of recent diffs in the OP show silly edits. However, the shotgun OP is very weak—why make me look at Special:Contributions/Keegscee only to discover the user was indeffed over seven years ago? Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

[COIN: RW editor, RW mod, RW boardmember]

The above complaint is multifaceted; let's do line-by-line.

Conflict of interest:

• This is unrefutable. I have an obvious conflict of interest. Indeed, I note so in virtually every post I've made to this website.
• However, I do my best to avoid WP:NOTHERE in terms of WP:NPOV. Example 1: When PCHS-NJROTC asked for more negative coverage from reliable sources in RationalWiki, I stepped up and added three such sources, for which PCHS-NJROTC commended me. Example 2: PCHS-NJROTC suggested discussion move from Talk:Vaginal steaming to WP:ELN and I did so.
• However, I think my COI is sufficiently strong that I shouldn't add any links to RationalWiki outside the RationalWiki (and possibly Conservapedia?) articles. I will not do so, regardless of what WP:ANI decides.

Sockpuppetry:

• User:DefinitelyNotFCP is not me: (I reverted them from adding RationalWiki.org, b/c consensus at Talk:Michel_Chossudovsky#RationalWiki_link was against.)
• User:Keegscee is not me: (SPI finding)
• If PCHS-NJROTC wishes, I welcome an SPI.

Disruption:

• WP:BATTLE: PCHS-NJROTC cites this edit summary, which states: "must every comment be another salvo in your war?" For context, I recommend this comment. I was and am annoyed by PCHS-NJROTC's use of discussion policy as a way of "telling people off" (eg, [71][72]). PCHS-NJROTC added a comment for no reason other than to say "nuh uh, YOU'RE the real bludgeoner!"
• Wikipedia:My little brother did it: PCHS-NJROTC points to [73][74] and [75][76] as disruptive. PCHS-NJROTC clearly does not accept my (admittedly unprovable and thus flimsy) explanation & apology. From the viewpoint of ANI, this is probably good grounds for a short-term block. *shrug* So be it.

Paid editing:

• ??? Honestly not sure where this comes from. I'm on the (nonprofit!) RationalWiki board -- we don't have the money to pay one, much less multiple, Wikipedia-writers. But if PCHS-NJROTC has evidence more solid than an evidence-free assertion by another Wikipedia user, then they may go right ahead.

Wikilawyering:

• I don't know what this refers to.

A final note:

Though PCHS-NJROTC does not note so here, PCHS-NJROTC has a substantial personal bias against RationalWiki. In his own words, PCHS-NJROTC is "biased against their wiki" to the degree that he is "against almost everything Rational-Wiki promotes". In PCHS-NJROTC's words, RationalWiki is my "mothership"; a "hate site"; the cause of "numerous fecal hurricanes on Wikipedia" for "the last seven years"; content created by teenagers -- indeed, "most of them are juvenile"; and "more like E{ncyclopedia }D{ramatica}" (a low blow). This bias led to PCHS-NJROTC falsely accusing User:David Gerard of WP:COI for a copyright issue with Freeman on the land. This bias was also why I initially dismissed PCHS-NJROTC's concerns on my talkpage.

Summary:

A short-term block for disruption to my own and PCHS-NJROTC's user talk pages is probably in order, as is a ban on adding links to rationalwiki.org to other articles. All else is baseless.

Thanks. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Having followed up on the context of each diff the OP provided, I haven't been able to find evidence of any recent socking associated with the present contest of wills. Yes, there are some extremely stale issues associated with numerous editors with an association to RationalWiki, but nothing connecting with FCP. FCP does have a rather large COI and could arguably stand to contribute to other areas if they want to prove that they are WP:HERE, rather than focusing on an organization for which they sit on the Board of Trustees, but they have not hidden the conflict and no evidence has been submitted to prove they are being disruptive to the level necessitating sanction. Those trolling comments certainly push the line, and I think FCP ought to read WP:COMPROMISED, because they very easily could have ended up with their primary account blocked (still could, technically speaking). It also calls into question just how responsible and professional an organization RationalWiki is, that one of its board members is either publicly trolling here or had a buddy who was willing to such, that they let use their account. I'd not want to have to explain that to the Board, if they became ware of this. But that said, and for our purposes on this project, I am willing to AGF on those couple of bizarre comments and I don't think they would amount to sanction in any event.

Under normal circumstances I would say we could stand to wait a little while to let PCHS-NJROTC substantiate their claims a little more. But since that user has made it clear that they planned to check out of Wikipedia for a couple of weeks starting immediately, that doesn't seem like a fruitful approach. Given the ambiguous and unsubstantiated nature of the claims made against FCP, no likely further involvement from the OP, the perspective of other editors (who are much more neutral than either the OP or FCP appear to be) who present an interpretation that suggests this is at least a two-way street, and the fairly even-tempered mea cupla of FCP, it is my opinion that this thread should be closed fairly quickly, with a thorough trouting for both editors, but probably no other action required. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(RMF board member here) The complainant is on a mission against RW, as detailed above. His spurious COI complaint against me was because I reverted a violation of copyright on his part. This complaint is more of the same, which is why the cites are so shoddy and spurious. I suggest a neutral editor examine the evidence and close it — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gerard (talk • contribs)
I am going to go ahead and reply since several people seem to desire my response, but I don't desire to spend the day watching this. Blocks are preventative, not punative. To clarify, the paid editing suspicion was raised by @Beestra: and he is the one that would need to provide insight on that. I am not saying that FCP is Keegscee, but they are from the same site and I fully believe the Rational-Wiki community collaborates to influence Wikipedia, as supported by the fact that another board member came to his defense in this discussion. There's also a description of an interesting organization that sounds an awful lot like a meatpuppetry ring on Rational-Wiki's article on Wikipedia. Some people have pointed out that I am a Conservapedian, and while that is correct, I have been a Wikipedian longer, have made more contributions to Wikipedia, I learned about Conservapedia only through Rational-Wikian shenanigans on Wikipedia, and unlike FCP, I do not go around promoting Conservapedia on Wikipedia except to acknowledge my involvement on my talk page. People bring up my dislike for Rational-Wiki, but honestly who here does like groups who have been responsible for disruptive behavior? I think bringing that into the equation here is a clear indication that some people think this is a WP:BATTLE, but I'm frankly not interested in a war with them; I'm interested in the integrity of the encyclopedia. FCP has acknowledged that his actions are block worthy, but he has also promised to change his behavior. Blocks are preventative, not punative, so I think the question is whether we are to believe he will change. Based on his response, I would recommend WP:TROUT for now per WP:AGF, possibly a topic ban, and an immediate revisitation of the issue if he does not change. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Something else I am going to add is that the first {{uw-coi}} template was honestly to help Fuzzy, not to slap him/her. In round two of Fuzzy's links, I was (and still am) annoyed, and I'm annoyed that he would push the issue as a COI editor. I don't have a problem with Fuzzy being here as a RationalWikian, but he needs to follow our rules and assimilate to the culture of Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC) (No smart ass pun intended; I just realized the similarities to political arguments)

"There's also a description of an interesting organization that sounds an awful lot like a meatpuppetry ring on Rational-Wiki's article on Wikipedia." You can in fact link to RW to demonstrate your claims about RW, you know. So please back up such claims. (I asked you to do so when you tried it on with your copyright violation, and you didn't then either.) You have yet to make a supported claim for action, and appear to be attempting to cover up such with sheer weight of verbiage. You have supplied nothing to show that FCP did anything wrong, and you really need to do so. Supply actual evidence, rather than piling on more claims - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Here and here. I don't like messing around with links when editing from mobile devices. I know very little about that organization in all honesty, but I am skeptical of any non-WMF/non-community based efforts to get people to edit Wikipedia a certain way, and Rational-Wiki seems to be promoting it, or at least in favor of it. You seem awfully defensive of your fellow board member who is here because he did something undeniably (and admittedly on his part) stupid, David. 74.5.231.189 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The accusation that Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia is in any way associated with Rationalwiki is a frequent one, but in several years of it I know of zero people involved in both. (As per the second link.) Unless you can actually produce some. Also, there's no evidence Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia has done anything wrong and that there would be anything wrong with being associated with them.

You're still not substantiating your claim at all, just stacking unsubstantiated accusations even higher - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. All those links do us provide coverage of Wikipedia's own policies from a "skeptics" point of view and celebrate the fact that the MEDRS/scientific contet policies align so well with their objectives already. They do not organize or encourage gaming, vandalism, trolling, or disruption in any way. There's a tempest in a teapot discussion of whether or not another group entirely had edit warred on a single article, four years ago, but zero incitement to replicate that that behaviour--in fact, the very tone of the coverage seems to suggest that the editors of that Rational Wiki article would disapprove of such a thing. Frankly, offsite speculation about a four-year-old edit war that doesn't relate to the present dispute in the slightest doesn't much interest me. If someone wants to go check out Rupert Sheldrake to make sure disruption is not an ongoing issue there, that's fine, but I see no way in which those links provide even indirect, tangential or circumstantial support for the claims they are being affixed to regarding FCP or an alleged rational wiki conspiracy.

It seems increasingly likely that there is no hard evidence at hand to support that notion, which seems to be pure supposition on PCHS's part, based on the fact that there are a large number of editors from RationalWiki commenting on the article about RationalWiki--but, as Fyddlestix points out above, there would hardly be anything surprising about that being the case, and it doesn't require a sock/meat conspiracy to come about. Frankly, I'm beginning to feel like we are playing a shell game every time PCHS is asked to substantiate their claims and I strongly feel they should consider WP:DROPPING THE STICK on this (and better yet would be a quick close by someone who has not yet commented here) before this starts to enter into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I would second closing it per WP:AGF + WP:TROUT anyway because the accused acknowledges that he needs to adjust his behavior in COI editing and refrain from trolling or allowing other people to use his account to troll, which are the chief issues prompting this thread. It would indeed be difficult to prove WP:MEATPUPPETRY (the paid editing issue was raised by someone else, I have no idea what prompted him to believe that, and he has yet to comment here). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A few things on your comments there: First off, there is no "accused" here; this isn't a trial in even the most remote sense. Second, What FCP actually said was that both your behaviour and theirs could have been less bombastic. I'm inclined to agree; the community is having to AGF with regard to both your approaches. Lastly, while you keep invoking Beetstra's name here as the source of the socking allegations, that user didn't file this report and hasn't commented here. You are the sole editor putting forward this vague assertion of an off-project conspiracy to vandalize the project (which claim you have repeated even through your most recent comments below), which you further say FCP must definitely be involved with, but without providing anything that looks even remotely like what we would consider evidence of such a strong claim. You can't vaguely cite another user from ages ago about some half-formed suspicion which they are not even themselves forwarding and then expect it to be taken seriously as context that proves that we should be closely scrutinizing the activity of another editor. That's not how this process works.

If you have anything concrete to suggest that FCP has socked or coordinated organized vandalism, gaming or disruption (either through on-project channels or off), then by all means supply it in the form of diffs, user comparisons, external links, or any other form of evidence used in the usually methodology for establishing these things. If you can't do that (and it seems pretty likely at this point that you have nothing that is compelling at this level), then I agree with others who have commented above that you are basically peddling innuendo without evidence here, and you should drop this line of discussion. Yes, you're right, it would be extremely difficult to prove meatpuppetry in this instance, but that doesn't mean you get to just make/imply such accusations again and again without evidence. I suggest your further commentary here avoid it altogether; you can't continue to introduce it into the discussion with a sly reference to an editor who is not even involved here and expect us to not notice that its you who is implying this supposed conspiracy without any real evidence. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved administrator, the impression I get from this thread is that a Conservapedia admin has crossed paths with a RationalWiki Trustee, both of which projects happen to have opposite views, and goals fundamentally incompatible with this project, and yet this neutral project happens to have become the site of their battleground. Unfortunately, we can't preventatively action users unless they've obviously violated our policies or consensuses, and this does not appear to be that kind of situation. It appears to be two ideologically-opposed users trying to get each other suppressed. Short of a two-way interaction ban, I don't see how we can realistically take either side, and would advise both users to quite simply leave each other alone as there is apparently no way you will be agreeing anytime soon. If you're really that unable to avoid each other, on this big project, I fear the community will have to impose a restriction. Swarm ♠ 01:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I could care less about getting into a fight or winning a fight with anyone from that site on Wikipedia (as a matter of fact, I find their WP:BATTLEGROUND reactions to be annoying). I could care less if FCP is blocked as long as he doesn't act disruptively (and those trolling edits are irrefutably disruptive, regardless of who committed them with Fuzzy's account). I actually would rather avoid indefinitely blocking him if at all possible because I think he will get mad and create socks if he is blocked indefinitely like Keegscee did. I just don't want people from Rational-Wiki (or Conservapedia, or any other organization for that matter) introducing links or content that are at odds with Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:ELNO, WP:BLPEL, WP:NPOV, WP:ADV, WP:SPAM, WP:OR etc.), and I don't want them vandalizing or trolling either. The integrity of the encyclopedia is the top concern for me as a Wikipedian; Conservapedia, my own ideology, self glorification, etc is second to that when I edit here. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm also going to add that I think you hit the nail on the head when you said both sites' objectives are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's neutral encyclopedia project. That's what brings us here today, the addition of links to RationalWiki escalating to a point that I have felt that a RationalWikian was being disruptive. Although I might not get involved in the situation if only to avoid off-Wikipedia consequences, a Conservapedian doing the same thing would be just as wrong. I think the simple solution would be to just spamblacklist both sites with a whitelist exception for the links on the sites' own articles. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As James Baldwin put it, "I can't believe what you say because I see what you do." You've had a thing about the Rational Wiki folk for a while now, with spurious COI reports, block shopping, and most of the other sorts of behavior we see from editors who let strongly-held views cloud their judgment. In light of your recent efforts the "I'm not interested in picking a fight" line rings hollow. A focused topic ban on Rational Wiki and its editors would spare the rest of us this ongoing dispute and ultimately would be for your own good. It would remove the temptation to go too far in what is clearly a hot-button topic for you while allowing you to contribute in other areas. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I do take issue with Rational-Wiki, just as I take issue with blatant vandals (and they are known in reliable sources as a pro-vandalism site, at least historically), but I'm not interested in a fight. Certain people make it into a fight. The recent issue with the link at vaginal steaming should have been a simple matter of a link that violates policy being removed and User:FuzzyCatPotato reading the policies I provided to him, but instead he decided to respond in a smart ass way (ooooh, I'm shaking in my boots, to paraphrase). I have made very few edits to the RationalWiki or Conservapedia articles, whereas FCP has made many. Spam blacklist both Rational-Wiki and Conservapedia, or issue a decree regarding RationalWiki and Conservapedia editors making edits related to either of the two subjects per WP:COI (as Swarm points out, it's a two way street) and my interest in having anything to do with those sites' coverage on Wikipedia will vanish, and at that point I would have no opposition to a topic-ban. Unless consensus is established in favor of the link at vaginal steaming (which I do not foresee; it will either end in consensus to remove or no consensus), you bet I would object a topic ban if there's nothing in place to stop people from adding links to R-W and Conservapedia, and I would appeal to WP:ARBCOM about it. I don't care about a fight and never have, I care about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, and as supported by Keegscee's case, at least some RationalWikians have been a threat to that. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If your interest is in the content outcomes and not in suppressing the voice of an opponent, then I suggest you take the content matters to any one of the numerous forums that can handle said issues. There are certainly spaces where you can propose that Rational Wiki be blacklisted. I don't give you great odds based on such a broad-ranging proscription, especially if the evidence you provide (alleging that allowing links to that Wiki are inherently disruptive) have a similar quality to the "evidence" you've provided of behavioural problems in your opponent above. But the option remains open to you to make such a proposal. And really, it is probably your only option, since most the community who have responded here (who were previously uninvolved in the dispute) seem to be in agreement that this is a content dispute, at its core. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There's on-going threads at WP:EL /N and Talk:Vaginal steaming. There's a few WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT arguments, as well as a WP:OTHERSTUFF/WP:HARMLESS argument, but everything else points to WP:ELNO. I don't engage with the Rational-Wikians about it (outside of necessity) or try to start fights over it, but I have been scrubbing blatant violations of WP:RS and WP:BLPEL and likely violations of WP:ELNO for seven years with no objections that I can remember except from Rational-Wikians. The exception is the one I removed from Freemen on the land, which I removed because I didn't see the correlation between that article (or previous versions) and the Rational-Wiki article (or previous versions), but since the community disagreed, I dropped the stick (even though I personally think the article needs to be firebombed and rewritten since it is apparently a paraphrase of a non-neutral publication with admitted incompatibilities with Wikipedia policies). I'm sure it's obvious that I'm agitated at the moment, but it's frustrating to see someone who refuses (until this AN/I post) to back off per WP:COI. If the community took issue with my removal of the links, I'd have stopped years ago, but until now, there's been almost nothing but support.

I brought this to AN/I mainly because his (or his friends') blatant troll posts and incivility were troubling to me as I worried that the situation was going to escalate, but he has taken responsibility for his actions since the posting of this AN/I and I am content with accepting that, unless he engages in more blatant disruption. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to chime in that I've been involved in this, and PCHS-NJROTC started out on a great first foot; they were engaging and interesting and civil almost to a fault. That lasted about a day. Things went downhill from there. He brought up creationism in a discussion about the relative accuracy and usefulness of RW, proceeded to argue about it, and try to win me over, then (I'm guessing when it became clear that he wasn't going to win me over) proceeded to accuse me of proselytizing "anti-Christian nonsense". After that, he proceeded to berate me for beating a dead horse when I was providing some clarification to another editor, condescendingly lecturing me about "responding to every comment that disagrees with" me, and then immediately start bludgeoning another editor and misrepresent the process of the discussion in an obvious attempt to sway any closer (the correction I later added was to but one false statement among several). I started out thinking I'd met a great new Wikipedian, and by the end of it just felt disgusted with the whole thread, as well as the editor. So I can't speak to whether FCW has been disruptive at all, but I can tell you this: PCHS has been. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that we both deserve a good WP:TROUTing for allowing that off-topic rabbit hole to continue like that. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban for PCHS-NJROTC from all RationalWiki topics and from commenting about the actions of editors that PCHS-NJROTC has publicly acknowledged as being associated with RationalWiki. Plenty of people are available to clean up unwarranted external links, and PCHS-NJROTC's attention is disruptive and not required. This is per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have an idea for a compromise that will settle this, and my proposal will be forth-coming this afternoon when I have time to put it together. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban on RW for PCHS-NJROTC. The fact that he is still commenting here after claiming to have pressing RL matters to attend to strongly suggests that they are too emotionally involved to be able to contribute neutrally in that subject area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic banFrom all Rationalwiki discussions and topics on Wikipedia. It's clear that PCHS-NJROTC has a problem with them, but the perceived issues are all in his head. Bringing it here and continuing on, like the ARBCOM proposal below shows the need for such a topic ban. Valeince (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support I felt this response was an overreaction at first, and there was not significant enough disruption here to warrant a topic ban, and so I hoped that the thread would be closed before the matter went farther, as it arguably could have been days ago. But the ongoing WP:IDHT on these issues, and especially the bizarre proposal below have swayed me to the position that this editor is going to keep worrying at this bone and treating this topic area as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Their assertions (that there are mass disruption issues relating to editors who are connected to a Wiki that they are clearly ideologically opposed to) have not been made alongside sufficient (or really any) evidence to substantiate these claims, and yet they continue to propose community inquiry/action against particular editors and now vaguely-defined groups of editors. At this point, a topic ban is looking like the most narrow and targeted means of moving this user along, hopefully towards some more productive work. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I felt this response was an overreaction at first, and there was not significant enough disruption here to warrant a topic ban This has been my experience, as well. I watched this thread evolve for a bit before I jumped in, because I was unsure as to whether the exchange between I and PCHS would even help. But eventually, I decided that it provided important contextual information about PCHS's state of mind wrt the original content dispute: It seemed less rational and more ideological, especially after he accused me of trying to proselytize to him. I felt much the same way about the proposed topic-ban; it seems like overreaction, given that PCHS certainly seems to be pushing for what he believes is right. But as we all should remain aware (and which I completely forgot at first), we're not here to do what is right, but to do what is best for an encyclopedia. It was seeing the proposal he made in response to Johnuniq that 'set my head straight', as it were. It's just so obviously an attempt at trying to steer the discussion away from him, and back towards those he feels should be punished. After reading the proposal below, it strongly reinforces my belief that what is best for both PCHS and WP as a whole is for PCHS to stay out of any discussion or article concerning RationalWiki. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support I can't add anything to what Snow Rise has said, really. PCHS has, unfortunately, dragged this from a simple point of discussion to a demonstration, in full public, that he cannot edit neutrally and non-disruptively in this area. I wish he hadn't done that, but now that he has, I can't see an alternative to supporting the indefinite topic ban. Sorry. -- Begoon 06:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose FuzzyCatPotato, who is on the board of the so-called Rational Wiki blog (and is known by the same screenname there) has been adding links to Rational Wiki throughout Wikipedia, e.g. [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], and [82]. These are just a few examples of this problematic behavior. This is clearly is promotionalism and violates Wikipedia's core policies. PCHS-NJROTC was correct in pointing this out and now other Rational Wiki editors who have accounts here are trying to have him topic banned. How does that make any sense? The real issue here is FuzzyCatPotato's shameless advertising of his blog on Wikipedia. Rational Wiki is the farthest thing from a reliable source and proudly defames people by their real name (e.g. [83]), which is nothing less than slander and libel, with an intention to hurt people in their real life. There is no way that any RW blog links should be present on Wikipedia. desmay (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Desmay, I feel that you may be conflating two issues here. Had I been party to the EL discussion at Vaginal steaming, I would have opposed the addition of the links myself, especially now that I've had a look at the RW page being linked to. I don't think (in that instance anyway) that the link is appropriate. But that is a content issue, not a behavioural one. I don't think FuzzyCatPotato's intention in adding those links is promotional; that is to say, I'm fairly certain that they believe the link improves the Wikipedia article. They may have bias in that respect, but the effort to add the link is itself an act of good faith (and note that the issues has divided opinions even amongst experienced and uninvolved editors at WP:ELN).

That said, let's be clear: there is disruption on both sides of this complaint (that is, with both FCP and PCHS). The difference between the conduct of the two is that FCP has owned up to their issues, identified why their comments were inappropriate, promised that they will not be repeated and given us every opportunity to WP:AGF about their behaviour from here in. PCHS, on the other hand, continued, through their most recent comments, to double-down on their disruptive behaviours by making assertions of socking/meatpuppetry by other editors without sufficient evidence (consider a form of WP:personal attack on this project), apparently WP:OUTTING still other editors, and making wild claims about a RationalWiki conspiracy and then attempting to validate this claim with reference to users who have not been on the site for more than seven years, and discussions that are even older than that. Even once it became obvious that this behaviour was leading them towards a topic ban, PCHS continued to dig themselves deeper by proposing actions that are so completely far out of whack with existing community policies that they not only have no chance of being adopted, they also give us reason to believe that this user has so little sense of perspective on this topic that they cannot contribute without disruption.

Look, I suggested repeatedly for this thread to be closed before PCHS earned themselves a WP:BOOMERANG, but things just moved too fast--mostly because of their insistence on making some pretty wild claims with too little (or really no) evidence to back them up. So believe me when I say that I would love to see this thread closed no-action. But at this point, it's not going to happen until PCHS reverses course here. A contributor simply cannot be making the kinds of broad assertions of bad faith activity, such as PCHS has made repeatedly in this discussion, without proper evidence. Nor are our contributors allowed to WP:OUT other editors (even long-absent users) with regard to their identities and other online activities. Nor is it helpful to suggest we start tracking User's off-site activities to enforce an ideological filter between them and their favourite areas to edit upon, just because they happen to contribute their time elsewhere online. And yeah, from the looks of talk page discussions, I suspect I would agree with PCHS nine-times-out-of-ten on those external link debates; PCHS seem to have the right end of the stick on policy, in that regard. But sadly, issues have moved beyond that. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I respect that you're trying to assume good faith but Rational Wiki editors, by their own admission, attack and edit other Wikis on an ideological basis, as reported in the LA Times [84]. I don't understand how one could honestly think that linking to another ideological Wiki is appropriate. Would links to Conservapedia be permitted on Wikipedia articles? Many of the editors that are active on the Rational Wiki specifically edited Wikipedia's article about Rational Wiki in order to try to show that it was notable. In the past, the Rational Wiki article redirected to Conservapedia, since Rational Wiki was built in order to vandalize and stalk editors on Conservapedia. Unlike PCHS, who keeps his affairs at Wikipedia and Conservapedia separate, I cannot help but suspect that these editors are collaborating offline to influence the decision of this ANI thread, especially since they view PCHS as an ideological enemy (by their own admission). This thread should be closed as you recommended because it's tainted by an outside influence trying to achieve their own ends. desmay (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm an editor at RW. Care to provide diffs of where I "...attack and edit other Wikis on an ideological basis..."? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Temporary Ban For Both Gosh what a mess. Since both seem to be using wikipedia as a battleground, perhaps it would be best to simply do a temporary ban on both the RationalWiki and Conservapedia editors (FuzzyCatPotato and PCHS-NJROTC) for a month or two. This will hopefully reset both to seek more compromising in the future here on wikipedia since these are very polarizing topics they are dealing with and WP:COI seems to be relevant here. After the temporary ban, they can resume editing on those topics.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Compromise solution (probably will require ArbCom intervention, probably best to wait for the on-going content dispute to conclude first though)

There seems to be a general agreement that disputes between RationalWikians and Conservapedians are not beneficial to the project, and as Swarm pointed out, both Conservapedia and Rational-Wiki are incompatible with Wikipedia. While both Conservapedians and Rational-Wikians could be productive contributors to this encyclopedia project, the really have a WP:COI when editing anything to do with Conservapedia or Rational-Wiki, and it is easy for a WP:BATTLEGROUND situation to spawn. For example, the Rational-Wiki article's first AfD was weighted by at least five Rational-Wikians (Weasleoid, Nx, Tmtoulouse, Huw Powell, and Super Hamster), two additional people I think I recognize as Rational-Wikians (R. Fiend and Sid 3050) and at least four Conservapedians (TK-CP, PCHS-NJROTC, Nobs03, and Geoff Plourde). Additionally, these admittedly biased websites have no legitimate place in Wikipedia besides their respective articles and brief mentions on user pages. Therefore, I propose:

• Known Rational-Wikians and Conservapedians will not edit anything related to Rational-Wiki or Conservapedia or mention those sites anywhere on Wikipedia except their own user page.
• Any user found to deliberately conceal their activity at these sites to avoid scrutiny will be subject to blocking.
• Non-RationalWikians and Non-Conservapedians will be limited to one post per discussion on the talk pages of these site's articles (to discourage WP:BLUDGEONing) and a 1RR will be enforced.
• (Assuming there is not consensus to keep linking to R-W) No editor will add links to rationalwiki.org or Conservapedia.com except on those site's articles.

PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion: topic-ban the single editor who is throwing around unfounded accusations and piling more on top when asked to justify his claims, which would be you as documented above - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems wholly unnecessary - and completely unfair to any RW or Conservapedia editors who might be out there and manage not to cause this kind of disruption. As long as individual editors comport themselves well here, there's no problem to fix. So I particularly object to the bit about "concealing their activity" on other sites. If they're editors in good standing and don't cause disruption, their activity on other sites is none of our f-ing business.

All that is required here is for the two (maybe 3?) of you to behave yourselves: don't post external links that are inappropriate, don't make personal attacks, don't use wikipedia as a battleground. If any of you can't do that, then the problem can be solved with topic and/or interaction bans. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

PCHS, to put it bluntly, this is never going to happen. We don't penalize or presume the worst of our fellow contributors on this project because of their alleged affiliations, political or otherwise. We can, and will, sanction specific users as necessary to prevent further disruption in a target area, but only after they have demonstrated their inability to contribute constructively in that area. What we don't do (or do anything remotely like) is create editorial restrictions for some vaguely defined ideological class of editor, based on either expressed beliefs or their status as volunteers with other groups. We absolutely and without question will not be digging into the off-site activities of our volunteers in order to try to enforce such an ideological filter on their activities here. And frankly, the fact that you thought this might actually be a viable proposal here suggests that you desperately need to familiarize yourself with some of our community's policies on the degree to which you are allowed to reference another user's off-project identity in either content or behavioural matters. In fact, if your identification of any of the users above stemmed from anything but their own self-identification here on Wikipedia (for example, if you are linking the activities of RationalWiki/Conservapedia accounts with community members here at Wikipedia) then you are already grossly in violation of WP:OUTTING and this needs to stop now.

This is really unfortunate; you might have avoided the WP:BOOMERANG here at any of a number of points the last couple of days by simply quitting while you were ahead and backing away from your self-defined battleground here. As it stands, you are now facing a likely topic ban from this area. If you continue to list users here for their offsite connections, even where they have not as yet made any kind of policy violation, you will probably end up with a longterm block. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, I was just about to ping each of the users you mentioned above. It's absolutely the last thing I wanted to do in a situation like this, given it could further swamp a thread that should have been resolved within an hour. But insofar as some of these editors may have been WP:OUTTED by your mentions here they would have had a right to have those comments revdelled, if they chose. But before typing out the ping template, I decided to follow up on their user pages, to see how many might have self-identifed their affiliations there. Which is how I discovered that of the nine editors you mention (as proof that this area is especially susceptible to disruption and requires extreme preventive measures), not one seems to have edited Wikipedia in the last couple of years. Six of the nine haven't edited Wikipedia in seven or more years; not one of the users you identify as a RationalWiki editor has edited here in the last seven years. Your behaviour and outlook here is beginning to look bizarre and WP:Battleground in the extreme. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The dispute on linking to RationalWiki (or Conservapedia) should be discussed elsewhere. PCHS-NJROTC appears to be voluntarily suggesting that he be topic-banned from pages on "other wikis", and is close to boomerang action regardless. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs

As you can infer, I am here to report E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs, particularly his WP:UNCIVIL edits and habit for WP:BLUDGEONing the process. The issue has a long history; here are a few instances of editors addressing his excessive comments: [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]. Even when he is not called out on it, Gregory can still be found blugeoning the process as far back as 2016, mainly in terror or political discussions (diffs can be provided if needed; a simple AfD stats check may suffice however). Here are also examples of Gregory's tendency to cast aspirations, make comments on editors, or be uncivil in order to taint the discussion: [92] [93] [94] [95]. He suffers from a bad case of WP:IDHT and always continues commenting at the same rate. When he is not doing this, however, Gregory can be highly productive content editor which is why I propose a three month tban from AfDs related to politics and crimes. He can appeal the ban in three months on the condition he is not bludgeoning other AfD discussions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

EMG is a skillful editor and has a knack of expanding articles to meet AfD objections. TGS and I have been bested by EMG in many AfDs. But EMG has a habit of drowning AfDs in a flood of comments. See this AfD for instance, where they make an astounding 34(!) comments. No one else is even close. I even told them to give a rest when they were half-way through (at 18 comments), but they don't listen.

Examples can be multiplied easily. Just look at any AfD which they participate in.

I suggest the following solution: let EMG make !votes on AfDs, but forbid any follow-ups. In other words, the are allowed exactly one comment on any AfD. I recall that this solution was used for behaviour at RfA by a certain editor who I am not naming here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If this is implemented, in my opinion, two or three would be a more reasonable limit than one. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How would this even be enforced though? I agree that Greg has made some very good points in AfDs, but at the same time he heavily overdoes it by commenting on everything and anything. In the end and what should be very clear is that he is ticking editors off and so the only thing I can think of being punitive would be at least a one month topic ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not merely in the spirit of compromise between you- but could I suggest two? That would give him a 'right of reply' yet would (hopefully) decrease the temptation to always have the last word. And don't we consider, on principle, the third edit to be the wheeling one? — fortunavelut luna 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with up to 3 edits per AfD but as I said I don't know how that would be enforced? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming for the moment that sanctions are necessary: "zero" or "one" are clean and easily enforced. "Zero" corresponds to a topic ban, "one" corresponds to a !vote explaining their reasons. Since EMG often makes persuasive points at AfDs (though I mostly don't agree with them), I think "one" is better. In my view, nobody needs a right of reply at an AfD: the discussion is about the article, not the editor. So I don't see any real reason for increasing the "one" to "two" or "three" or whatever. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The RoR might be explanatory, perhaps, of the previous point. — fortunavelut luna 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think two is a good agreement then here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I will support a two-comment limit. His initial input is not disruptive, just the continuation of it. There is no reason half an AfD page or more should be devoted to Gregory's comments. Other editors have a right to weigh-in without a response from Gregory reasserting what he already said or "updating" his current state of mind on the discussion on a daily basis.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Having closed a few AfDs where E.M.Gregory has participated, I can vouch for the fact that his style of participation makes it harder to adjudge consensus. I think that Kingsindian's proposal (with Guy Macon's amendment) would be reasonable. A Train^talk 14:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comment made me curious since I can't remember interacting with you, probably for the simple reason that you close discussions long after I have left. I ran an interaction search and The AfDs that you closed: were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beheading of Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar (where I made 1 comment,) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Day (1 comment,) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa azad (1 comment); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somos Los Otros NY (1 comment); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reem (singer) (1 comment); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Institute of Carpet Technology, Bhadohi (3 comments as I attempted to source an under-sourced Indian post-secondary technical college); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Gorka (2 comments); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrella repair in Hong Kong (unsourced stub that is actually about Unbrella repair in Hong Kong, 1 comment, your rolled it over); and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Kessler (think tank foreign policy wonk) - here I did make multiple comments; you closed as "no consensus." Frankly I am puzzled as to understand in what way my comments on the pages you closed made it "harder to adjudge consensus."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What your survey is missing is discussions that I have relisted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010), where you made 51 edits. Being able to make concise arguments is an important part of working collaboratively. A Train^talk 20:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

'So, yes, I have strong opinions on terrorism.' Actually, you have strong opinions on one type of terrorism. That is evident in your topic-focus.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Convenience break 1

• Responding

• In general, what I do at AfD is to search for sources on topics that appear plausible, routinely sourcing paltry article. Most of the hundreds of articles that I have found at AfD and sourced, are on fairly minor topics, uncontroversial, like last week's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Wood (journalist). But there attempts by fans of a subject to delete an article about a notable subject, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew C. Whitaker. Others are about people who are, for sundry reasons, hated by other people. Take, for example Dorothy King, a rich girl popularizer of archaeology and vocal opponent of the idea that the British Museum ought to send the Elgin Marbles to Athens. It takes time and an enormous amount of work to defend an individual or topic intensely hated by most editors who follow the field she writes about. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy King (2nd nomination). It is, however, is very simple for an editor to delete such a page since most of us WP:AGF and take the Nom at his word. Fair enough, not only because most Noms at AfD are good editors playing straight, but because an enormous number of articles are stared every day on wannabe rock bands, minor athletes, non-notable films and the like. The editors who bring such articles to AfD deserve our admiration even though every once in a while even an extremely diligent editor like Bearcat - who monitors new article on wannabe politicians - will miss real notability in a minor politician. But the fact that most AfD nominationa are non-controversial discoveries by good editors weeding out the PROMO means that an editor with an animus can slip in areicles on topics that dislike. And, of course, we all make mistakes. Here's one I caught, that might easily have been deleted merely for having been a thing a few years ago, although I'm sure Nom was acting in good faith Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Soccer War (book).

• I regard AfD as a sort of intellectual pastime, screening today's list of new AfDs or topical lists to spot notability editors missed as well as unpopular topics with real notability. I am blessed with access to powerful archive searches, and some experience scanning academic jargon, which enables me to regularly check topics in ancient history (like people who were notable in the 1990s) where ediors running good-faith google searches often miss notability.

• However, what has brought me to ANI is not the diligent, steady work I do sourcing, upgrading and arguing "keep" at literlly hundreds of pages like pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chaney Jr., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eamon Delaney, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bensoussan. What brings us here is the fact that I regularly edit terrorism related pages, and this makes me hated by TheGracefulSlick. I believe that terrorist attacks that generate national and international coverage pass WP:NCRIME. TheGracefulSlick argues strongly that many WP articles on terrorist attacks need to be deleted. I think that we first met at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Minneapolis shooting. Certainly we have been clashing regularly all summer, but I think that most of the terrorism-related AfD articles where we have disagreed this summer have been kept.

• One of the articles where I argued this summer to keep and Slick argued to delete read, in part " this is an obvious WP:NOTNEWS event that is better explained in a list." (here: [96]) This is typical of his comments at terrorism-related AfD pages. Slick returned to the page to let off a little steam [97], then, as the discussion trended keep, accused us all of bad faith, took his marbles, and left in a huff [98]. Well, we all lose our tempers sometimes.

• What was truly troubling is that although that AfD was closed by Sandstein as keep ("The result was keep"), in June, this week slick returned to the scene to make the same argument she made at AfD, i.e., that the article should be merged to a list. Since, if he had brought it back to AfD, the discussion would probably have been closed as keep on procedural grounds, I viewed GracefulSlick's Merge proposal as a sort of AfD-by-stealth, and said so here: [99]. And so The Graceful Slick brought me here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, what brought you here was the constant WP:BLUDGEONing of AfD discussions. I certainly do not hate you. I hardly even know you. Did you not read my opening comment?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Another article that Slick rather aggressively brought back to AfD only a month after it closed a Keep was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. Article was created, by me, almost a year after the attack because an important arrest of a ISIS operative in Germany threw a whole new light not on ISIS's work instigating attacks outside the Near East that had been presumed to be lone wolf. It shows the way in which GracefulSlick is so incensed by the existence of articles on terrorist attacks, that he sometimes seems to be unable to read and comprehend the actual information and sources in the article he is attempting to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I just notiiced on a 3rd example of GracefulSlick's highly problematic behavior with regard to recent terrorism-related notability discussions. Here Graceful Slick blanked a page: March 2017 Île-de-France attacks, (here: [100]). When her blanking was reverted by User:User2534, Slick suggested that the page be merged. Because this attack is one in a series of what are now 6 or 7 2017 terrorist attacks on police and soldiers now patrolling the streets of French cities under the State of Emergency, and because each of the other pages on these attacks had been kept after being brought to AfD, it appears to me that both the blanking of the page and the proposed merge are inappropriate for a page that was bound to be contested if taken to AfD. I do feel that this attempt to restrict my editing is an indirect way to "win" at terrorism-related AfD discussions by blocking an editor with whom Graceful Slick disagrees on the notability of terrorism-related articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The flaw in Kingsindian's proposal is that there are many AfDs on somewhat arcane topics such as the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. If you look at the talk page for the article Talk:2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson#ISIS involvement, you will see that my arguments were based on reading of entire sources, an amount of work that even very good editors weighing in at the AfD, like, Knowledgekid, were not able to spend the time to do. Editors working at AfD regularly and understandably do not always choose to read entire, lenghty articles.

When, as at the 2 AfD discussions (both closed as keep) this summer about the 1026Malmo ISIS-relate arson attack, I have read long, complex sources, I can often weigh in with information that other editors have not seen.

This was the case recently at alt-left, a topic that I spend several hours yesterday reading and managed to revise a terrible attack page into a pretty-solid, NPOV version - that was rapidly mucked up by a highly problematic editor. Nevertheless, I kept arguing because I had seen and read WPSIGCOV in the WaPo and by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic and a convoluted essay by intellectuals including Leon Wieselier-type cultural critic James Wolcott written months before Trump's appalling remarks, and other editors at the AfD seemed unarare that the term had ever had such coverage. Ultimately, the alt-left is a trivial insult, notable, but likely to soon be of interest only to intellectual historians.

Islamo-Leftism, on the other hand is a serious topic that editors attack for similar reasons of animus, outrage and ignorance. I do not regret the many times I weighed in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamo-Leftism, or, frankly, the times I have returned over the course of 2 or 3 days or 2 or 3 weeks to weigh in, often on older topics that require sourcing to old books (I recall once requesting that an article related to a specific ships captain involved in piracy in the strait of Malacca at AfD be rolled over while I checked the sourcing in the article citing a book that had to be brought to the main library I use for offsite. Solid, turn of the century source even if I don't recall the pirate captain's name.

So, yes, I have strong opinions on terrorism. But I am also willing to do actual work validating and invalidating articles at AfD, and I regularly do this by commenting, then coming back in a day or so, searching, reading sources, often striking changing my iVote, making multiple comments and doing the kind of actual sourcing that few editors do at AfD.

This draws fire at terrorism-related pages. And from Kingsindian who has been gunning for me since we met at Susya when I was very green.

But this is how I work and I not only think that my edits at AfD have been valuable to the project, but that requiring that I make one or two comments and stop will prevent me from being able to follow the method that has made me useful: I scan for articles that may not have been properly gauged by Nom, run my own keyword searches, and make a comment. Then revisit in a day or two, and, if other editors disagree or no one else has done the work and the topic is one I think I can handle, I dive in and source it, often surprising myself enough to change my iVote. But regularly making multiple comments as I work - or when I want to sum up what i have found and return to my day job for a day or so. (other edits are due to poor keyboard skills, i.e. the sheer number of my edits on most pages deceives since about half are correcting my own typos or misspelled links). But, yes, if I am to be useful on complex and unusual topics at Afd, I do need the freedom to make multiple edits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Please add some paragraph breaks so this can be more easily read. Huge blocks of text are quite difficult to read online. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• done.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, but it needed paragraph breaks and not indents. I've corected that, keeping your break points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• E.M. Gregory deserves kudos and medals for their great work in all their AFDs I have seen. It is tremendously valuable to have someone actualy take the time and apply expertise to salvage articles. I don't follow terrorism topics, but from the above I gather that some with set views in that area are frustrated by the facts and sources that E.M.Gregory brought to bear. I tend to believe E.M.G. ws right and they were wrong in those AFDs then. Sure if you are bent on deleting a topic and EMG shows up then you have probably lost your quest. But EMG only shows up when they have the right info. --doncram 00:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Doncram: this isn't about being "right". Gregory's input is appreciated but no one needs to read the same thing dozens of times. He bludgeons anyone who dares to have a differing view which is not fair to editors who have legitimate opinions about the article(s) in question.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory does little but bludgeon the AfD process. Here are three recent AfDs in which we both participated:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010) Gregory made 41.3% of the edits to the page, adding 36% of the page's text.
• WP:Articles for deletion/Meir Ettinger Gregory made 12.8% of the edits to the page, adding 19% of the page's text.
• WP:Articles for deletion/2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot Gregory made 51.2% of the edits to the page, adding 40% of the page's text.

This ought not to be acceptable behavior, especially his obsessive need to (incorrectly) summarize the discussion every day. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Convenience break 2

• I Oppose any full-ban on AfD participation. I'm Neutral on a proposal to limit E.M.Gregory to one comment per AfD on political topics. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: the proposal is leaning toward a two-comment limit. Also, this part of your edit summary, "If editors push this further, boomerang action may need to be considered", is uncalled for and unhelpful, especially since no one has aggressively advocated for banning Gregory from anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support two-comment limit on all further AFD related to politics and crimes for a period of three months Oppose - Per S Marshall who notes that the editor has agreed he does sometimes get carried away and per Lankiveil and my own comment to their post where I stated I could oppose if the editor took some measure. E.M.Gregory has stated on this ANI discussion that; "I do acknowledge that I can get carried away in the heat of debate" and " I will try in future to keep my commenting at AfD strictly on point". Lankiveil's post made me realize that, while there may not be a consensus for the ban from commenting more than two times at AFD, there does seem to be a pretty good consensus that the editor has become disruptive enough that there is concern. Even oppose votes seem indicate that some behavior is at least out of the ordinary and outside the standard approach. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement (which is something we use to gauge someone's argument during disputes) places much of what they say in the ad hominem level. One level from the bottom. Using this on a constant basis can be disruptive but not everyone agrees whether that is a bad thing by itself. Consensus may have come to an acknowledgment, not just from the editor but from the community in general. Pretty sure that is discouraging enough to make the editor at least realize they are now on the radar of many experienced editors, even some that are supportive of their contributions to the AFD process. Lankiveil made me notice that even a straight oppose opinion does hold some consensus agreement on the behavior of the editor and they even go as far as suggest they limit their responses (as many as they like) to a single post space. Perhaps the outcome would be a consensus for some other form of limitation or be a strong piece of advice such as mentioned to avoid another ANI.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(older comment) I agree with TheGracefulSlick who stated; "His initial input is not disruptive, just the continuation of it". Also of note is that the approach becomes adopted by others with less experience. It becomes off putting and I believe dissuades others from adding their !vote and opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nonsense. I have read through several of the complained-about AFDs and see nothing wrong. The "evidence" here starts with a diff to another editor's tendentious complaint within an AFD, within Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010), in which EMG's participation is constructive and others' participation is perhaps dubious. For example the AFD nominator participated too much at the beginning, or at least more than I would have preferred. EMG offered housekeeping-type help, such as asking about previous AFD and then providing link to it. Over a long time there was eventually some bickering (in which EMG offered new info while others repeated themselves without new info IMHO) but it was fine overall. To censor one editor (the most constructive one IMHO) in the absence of general limits on AFD participation would be pretty awful. If we were to do that kind of thing, then that would be a great way for any one of us identify one or two editors who tend to disagree on inclusionism-exclusionism scale so that we would "win" more AFDs. --doncram 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support voluntary corrective feedback  I was a target of E.M.Gregory at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress) when I was accused of WP:BLUDGEON when I pointed out that E.M.Gregory was using old research for his claims.  Since a lack of current research is not explained by another editor's participation in an AfD, he has been swept up in the heat of the moment and abandoned the force of reason. 

  The three-month proposal with any of these edit count restrictions is very practical and it should not imply that E.M.Gregory is required to prove that there is any behavior change by the end of that period of time.  The negative feedback is likely to be constructive for his career.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think this discussion has been derailed by incivility denial, but I can accept that the commitment to "try in future to keep my commenting at AfD strictly on point" is a key response to a key problem and is a good way forward.  I echo the comment of User:Sport and politics just below mine to comment on the contribution, not the contributor.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Having had the misfortune of being involved in an AfD's with E.M. Gregory, i found the comments devolved in to commenting on the contributor and not remaining focused on the content. Bludgeoning is a correct term to describe the actions of E.M Gregory. Sport and politics (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

here here are two more examples of recent E.M. Gregory behaviour at a recent AfD where a wall of text has appeared, and it is an example of how hard it can be to know establish a consensus on an AfD. Sport and politics (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support a different restriction. Someone above mentioned an example where EMG commented 34 times, but here is an AfD where the count seems to exceed 40. It is completely ridiculous that someone is allowed to dominate an AfD like that. However the really annoying thing is not the number of times he edits the AfD but his habit of responding in place to everyone whose opinion differs from his. Instead of limiting him to a maximum number of comments, he should be required to keep all his comments, no matter how many, to a single subsection. (Actually I wouldn't mind if everyone had some such restriction.) Zero^talk 19:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I hope you realize that by not supporting the actual proposal under consideration, but instead proposing something completely different, which is unlikely to receive additional support from other editors, you are subverting the current proposal and making it less probable that the behavior of the editor in question will be controlled (which appears to be your bottom line), not more probable. Sometimes, just like in real life, you don't get to have your ideal solution, you get to choose between what are (in your opinion) less than ideal fixes, and you back the one that seems best to you. Not doing so runs the risk of getting no solution at all. I do wish people would think these things through instead of just throwing stuff out there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Zero0000: can you consider supporting the restriction more editors are agreeing with instead of your seperate proposal?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I support any restriction that prevents EMG's current mode of behavior. So please count me in favor of the majority opinion in favor of restriction. Zero^talk 08:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support some sort of restriction on EMG's comments on AfDs, preferably limiting EMG to one comment. I would also support a TB on AfDs if there is enough support for that option. This problem behavior has been going on a while. My first encounter with EMG was at WP:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination), where EMG pummeled everyone who disagreed with comment after comment, often repeating the same point again and again. Then EMG had the audacity to accuse others of WP:IDHT. I really don't know the quality of EMG's edits apart from AfDs, but this obsession with endlessly countering every comment of disagreement is very destructive to the consensus process. Sundayclose (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support a two- or three- comment per AfD restriction. E.M.Gregory's manner at AfD makes collaboration more difficult, which is behaviour that a collaborative project should discourage. A Train^talk 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support a two comment (or similar) restriction per AfD, to stop the WP:BLUDGEONING. I almost started a discussion like this myself, but I had hoped E.M.Gregory would take the hint when other editors, including myself, suggested that refrain from making so many comments. Examples of excessive comments: 42 comments, 31comments, 42 comments, 48 comments. - MrX 22:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, given the evidence that the editor can't seem to control their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Night of the Living Dead (1968) theatrical poster.jpg

In exceptional circumstances bludgeoning is indeed justifiable. –EEng

But mostly it's frowned upon. –Beyond My Ken (talk)

Helpful ant not disruptive [1]

• Support per BMK directly above. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no reason to argue with him. If he i addressing issues with articles, that's a good thing. I haven't seen arguments that his content creation is bad and other editors appreciate his comments so they can see how an article has changed from its listing. It's only annoying to those that disagree with him. That's not disruption and it's not a reason for a sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• You seem to be rather missing the point. It's not EMG's content creation which is the locus of the problem here, it's his bludgeoning of people who disagree with him on AfDs. I can see how that would be annoying to those who differ with his viewpoint, can't you? After all, we're all Wikipedians, whether we agree with EMG or not, and simply taking an opposing position from EMG does not mean that the editor is fair game to be bludgeoned.
  And however do you come to the conclusion that "There is no reason to argue with him"? Are you saying that he is invariably correct at AfD, and that once he speaks there is no point in any other Wikipedian commenting to disagree, since there is (you say) no reason to argue with him? How, I wonder, did he come by this fantastic ability to be constantly correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am not missing the point and quite aware of the underlying reason for this complaint. It's not just comments at AfD as those that are frustrated also seem to have disputes regarding content and focus. Otherwise the content area regarding terrorism would not have been mentioned. Secondly, no I am not saying he is right and therefore needs no reply. I am saying there is no reason to respond or argue with statements in an AfD. To use your reply as an example, the first part of your reply was a patronizing statement questioning my understanding. It was needless but a curt reply asserting you are incorrect is sufficient. There is no need to further discuss how incorrect you are even if you reply again. We could go 'round and 'round generating lots of comment but simply not replying is sufficient. The last comment in a thread isn't the "correct" comment, it's merely the last one. Your comments don't invalidate my view. Irritating commenters are stopped by simply not replying after positions are made clear. As a rhetorical question, if this ANI entry were a complaint about "BMK's follow-up comments at ANI being disruptive," how supportive of sanctions would you be especially if it was filed by those that you have been in dispute with? Your need to comment on my oppose is exactly the behavior this sanction is trying to thwart but whether it's disruption or participation is in the eye of the beholder. Your passion is participation at ANI and that is fine. EMG ha a passion for retaining articles on terrorism. I am reluctant to restrain participation especially if the result is better articles. No one has put forward any evidence that he is tilting against windmills and arguing against consensus. A I recall, one of the metrics put forward for admin 'good judgement' is how often their !vote matched the AfD outcome. If EMG's !votes are matching the outcome, he is not being disruptive, he's building the encyclopedia using good judgement. --DHeyward (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but your analysis is weak. For one things, considering the personal matter you brought up, participating at AN/I is not my "passion". Of my edits, 73.16% are to articles, and less than 4% are to AN/I. My "passion", as you put it, is to improve the encyclopedia in any way that I can, always primarily at the article level. AN/I is simply a sideline.
  But more specifically to this issue, your ≈statement that "No one has put forward any evidence that he is tilting against windmills and arguing against consensus" is, once again, completely missing the point. Bludgeoning can occur whether or not the bludgeoning editor's opinion is upheld by consensus or not: it's not the result which determines whether bludgeoning has occurred, it's the actual ongoing act of responding to a large number of comments, thus creating a negative atmosphere in the AfD which inhibits participation by other editors. In other words, at least in this instance, the ends do not justify the means. Bludgeoning is never justifiable. If an AfD is being trolled or overwhelmed by canvassed participants, EMG should seek out an admin to deal with the problem, or post about it on one of the noticeboards, they should not attempt to shout down the opposition by personally controlling the discussion. "If EMG's !votes are matching the outcome, he is not being disruptive" is simply totally and completely incorrect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• If you believe Bludgeoning is never justifiable (emphasis on never), why are you bludgeoning me over my oppose opinion? I already said you need not reply and my point was obviously clear. Please stop making my case lest you find yourself at ANI by someone that opposes your bludgeoning. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is not bludgeoning, this is what is called "a discussion". Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, and it's virtually impossible to reach a consensus without having at least some discussion. If you're intersted in rolling the dice to find out what happens if you file an AN/I complaint about me for having a discussion with you, please be my guest.
  As opposed to a valid discussion, WP:BLUDGEONing, especially as described here, is something else entirely. If I replied to each and every "oppose" !vote, or almost every one, repeating much the same argument each time, and then replied again to the responses I got, that would be bludgeoning. You seem to be saying that if were to do that in this discussion, in favor of a sanction of EMG, and EMG is not sanctioned, then that would be bludgeoning because I did not agree with the eventual consensus, but if I did it and he was sanctioned, that wouldn't be bludgeoning, because my view was the consensus one. That would make bludgeoning sort of like Schrödinger's cat, constantly in a state of uncertainty until the final result was in after the box was opened.
  In any case, since we're unlikely to agree, I think you are right and we should leave it that we disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your constant replies to my oppose, and other comment in this ANI and numerous others, is indeed exactly what the essay covers. You have a need to get the last word in on my oppose opinion. My opinion is rational, explained and shared by others yet you continue to reply. It's not different than the "bludgeoning" as it's being applied to E.M. Gregory. You call it discussion and apparently believe it's productive even though your comments are unpersuasive and have now taken on a form of strawman where you incorrectly characterize what I said in your words and then attack your own characterization. Why? I didn't feel a need to comment on your support or even challenge your patronizing {tq|I hope you realize...}} comments in another editors opinion even though you do realize that you have no idea what the closing admin needs to realize out of that opinion. You have responded to numerous comments here even though you don't require clarification because you are not in a position to decide anything and it doesn't appear you are seeking input to form your own opinion, just discredit others or drum up support for your own. In short, you behave in the manner which you criticize EMG, pin a rose on it and call it different even though the smell is remarkably similar. It is not different yet you justify your behavior while asking to sanction another. I am consistent in that I believe you may participate in any way you please just as EMG should be allowed to participate. If you wish to muzzle him because you don't like his comments, consider a muzzle fitting based on your own behavior. They are not different except in your mind. --DHeyward (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per A Train. Seeing a stack of EMG comments on an AfD makes it so much harder to judge actual consensus and close properly. If he could express himself more concisely I think more people would actually read and listen to him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Firstly, there is certainly no case for any kind of topic ban preventing EMG from AfD participation entirely. Most seem to agree on that. Secondly, if the "problem" is as stated, and EMG makes useful and insightful comments, but then makes too many follow-ups, then this is not a good solution. By restricting him to one or two comments the incentive will be for him to wait until late in the AfD, so that he can address all other comments "in one go", thus removing the advantage of having his useful input available early on, and possibly resulting in a large, wide-ranging comment, itself requiring a number of responses. That's far from ideal. In any case, having looked at the examples given, I don't find the behaviour at all as disruptive as portrayed. On the occasions where he makes many comments the debates are long, and his comments seem well explained, relevant and not combative. Additionally, I share doncram's concerns that this type of approach could become a dangerous precedent for those wishing to "hobble" an "opponent" -- Begoon 06:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose having read through all of this, a restriction is too harsh. The OP is trying to throw them out of AfD which is telling. Agree with User:Begoon we should not be letting people hobble an opponent like this. The editor is a smart editor and I'm sure he will be more careful in the future to avoid behavior that can be fairly seen as repeating objectionable behavior. Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Legacypac: a brief read through this thread will show I am not trying to throw Gregory out of AfD. I actually supported the two-comment restriction awhile ago and haven't advocated my original proposal. And Gregory has been repeating this behavior since 2016. I am pretty sure that is enough time to be more careful after all the warnings he received. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any restriction lasting more than 3 months Too valuable an editor for us to risk de-motivating with unnecessary sanctions. Oppose even a time limited restriction as too harsh if they’ll concede it would be good to cut back a bit on the badgering. EMG makes a good case about why his freedom to post multiple times helps us reach a good evidence based consensus. I echo Doncram about him deserving medals, and find Begoon's argument persuasive. Except to say he can be combative on occasion. In the Teresa May AfD he had the gall to accuse the phenomenal Unscintillating of bludgeoning! He also claimed my keep vote was arguing from false premises. When I posted a link to prove conclusively that was not the case, he didn't retract his claim. Insults from deletionists are water of a ducks back, but having an almost ARS quality scholar question my veracity was somewhat hurtful. No matter how outstanding a scholar you are, you can still make mistakes. Wikipedia helps protect against individual mistakes by collective decision making. While limited badgering can be helpful, taken to an excess it's disruptive, as Grace & the supporters explain. Have faith that good AfD closers can recognise innacrate assertions in the delete votes; they don't have to pointed out explicitly every time. All that said, EMG is a very appreciated editor overall, and I really hope feedback on this page is not dis-heartening. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I struck out my original proposal since a few editors are confusing my support for the comment restriction with it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Here [101] is a link to the strange series of AfDs on Teresa May, non-notable porn model/actress, a page repeatedly re-created, and defended by people at least some of whom enjoyed or were politically motivated to want to have a hatnote atop the Prime Minister's page redirecting to a porn actress. It was a strange discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I see you are still working from old research.  At the 2016 AfD you successfully created a twodabs solution to avoid a hatnote on the prime minister's article.  I proposed your exact solution at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_9#Teresa_May, but in that discussion you turned your back on your own solution.  And it is a 100% red herring to characterize an association between Theresa May and Teresa May as Wikipedian POV attempts (and which is another example of you disparaging Wikipedia contributors when there are better ways to express your viewpoint).  As per the book by Theresa June Rosa Prince quoted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress), it is more accurate to say that Theresa May saved her political career and became prime minister by associating herself with Teresa May.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I had forgotten entirely that the porn actress somehow figured in a real political campaign. What I clearly do remember is that even extensive archive searches could not turn up notability for the porn actress/model as an actress or model, but tabloids ran photos of nude Teresa May" when Theresa May became a major political figure, that the former porn model was able to make money selling nudie photos taken when she was young, and that part of the discussion or point of those AfDs was to address the perceived unfairness of repeated attempts to drape a nude model across the top of the Prime Minister's Wikipedia page. I fear we're drifting off topic here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I do acknowledge that I can get carried away in the heat of debate, although not as often as some editors seem to think, and despite the factthat I have been the target of trolls, of a series of sockpuppets created to HOUNDDOG and provoke me into losing my cool, of regular visits to my talk page by odd IPs attempting trip me up with invitations to make strange edits. dislike my position on terrorism, and by editors who disagree with my position on the notability of terrorist attacks (which, by the by, are only one of the topics where I edit regularly by adding content and sources) and who often seem to be trying to provoke me into saying something that will get me bumped. I deeply appreciate the willingness of editors whom I have not met at AfD to come to this page and expend valuable time looking at the arguments and evidence. And I will try in future to keep my commenting at AfD strictly on point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Then why not impose a voluntary restriction on yourself? Is there really anything you can say in 34 or 40 comments that you can't say in 2 or 3 or 5? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That isn't a bad idea..in fact E.M.Gregory you might actually counter to the nominating editor TheGracefulSlick that you would voluntarily restrict yourself to no more than two comments on just the two subjects mentioned, politics and crime for three months, if the other editor agrees to the same. This might allow the other editor to demonstrate that they are not attempting to just "hobble an opponent" as I believe I see it written. At this point I think a voluntary restriction even without that would gain you a heck of a lot more faith from your fellow editors. But perhaps this is too much to ask.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Earlier above I asked E.M.Gregory how he feels about a voluntary restriction and, if so, what kind of restriction he thinks is appropriate. I hope we get a reply because that could help move this issue toward resolution. Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Miller and Sundayclose Gregory's participation here seems unlikely. In fact, he is now badgering me at this merge discussion. Apparently following standard WP:MERGE talk procedure is illegitimate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support for a 3 or more comment limitation. About the 34 comment example, while it may be true that no one was close, the situation seems a little more complex than the pure number would suggest. There are longish back and forths between EMG and multiple other editors in that discussion. Under the "two to tango" concept, I'm generally reluctant to criticise only one party for long back and forths since ultimately if the other editor wasn't responding, then the first editor would just be talking to themselves which would be obvious (and also is very rare). The fact it's multiple isn't the best of signs. Still I don't consider that a great example of the problem. More concerning to me is the sheer number of !vote EMG responded to which is rarely a good sign. As for the possibility EMG will just wait and post lots of followups in one go, well all the comments here suggest to me we should be able to think better of EMG than that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I actually think an omnibus response would be quite acceptable. One of the primary problems with WP:BLUDGEONing, in my view, is that the ongoing commentary from the bludgeoning editor could have the tendency to inhibit comments from editors who have yet to participate. They look at the fact that practically every post is getting a bludgeoning response, and they decide to just avoid the hassle and pass the whole thing by. I don't think you get that effect if the editor who would have bludgeoned had instead posted a single comment dealing with multiple comments. They might even be able to fashion it into a single coherent argument rather than individual hammer strikes, which I think is a definite improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support to address repeated and disruptive WP:BLUDGEONING. Had I joined this conversation earlier I would have recommended the restriction be limited to "terrorism, mass casualty, and political AFDs" as this seems to be where the disruption occurs and a wider than necessary restriction is undesirable. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• As I explain above many,many of my edits are the result of my notoriously poor keyboard skills: I often return, sometimes more than once to fix a link or a word that is misstyyyped or or repeaeated. More to the point, however, is that free confess to occasional BLUDGEONONG, what I am doing at these pages is not repeating myself, but bringing new sources, carefully reading policies and citing them, improving the article then making a WP:HEY comment, sometimes making a second HEY comment, revisiting and reversing an iVote, and, more lately, I have taken adding "fact checking" comments when an editor in a discussion makes a clear assertion in a discussion that is verifiably inaccurate. Moreover, many of the complaints here are by editors with whom I disagree on one of the many topics that I edit on: terrorism. I edit in this area more than I might choose if it were not such a hotly contested area. For those who don't know, an article will be brought to deletion on the grounds that it is insufficiently sourced, then I or someone goes in and sources it, at which point it is tagged as oversourced and the AfD discussion turns to some new topic. Take a look, for example, at Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, two pages the editing of which would have tried the patience of a saint. I am no saint, but had I been restricted to 1 or 3 or 4 edits Father Georgios woulls have no page, despite due to the fact that politician Marwan Barghouti was convicted of ordering his murder, and there are editors who JUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, you can cherry-pick pages where you comment all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the overall and overwhelming pattern in your comments on AfDs is to bludgeon by repeating the same points over and over, not "bring new sources" or fix your typing errors. Trying to pretend that your behavior is "occasional BLUDGEONING" so that it can be excused doesn't help your case here. You bludgeon more than any editor I have ever seen on AfDs. That being said, I hope you can continue to make constructive edits and, regardless of any administrative outcome of this discussion, that you will restrict your comments on AfDs to one or two. It's time for you to err on the side of caution. Sundayclose (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I just revisited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination), the only AfD where you and I have ever interacted. Other editors are free to take a look at this and other AfDs I have edited, but Sundayclose's assertion: "the overall and overwhelming pattern in your comments on AfDs is to bludgeon by repeating the same points over and over, not "bring new sources" is flatly untrue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I also encourage other editors to look at that AfD and reach their own conclusions. I also would like E.M.Gregory's response to a suggestion above to impose a voluntary self-restriction on commenting at AfDs, and if E.M.Gregory agrees with that suggestion, to state what kind of self restriction. Sundayclose (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is there something analagous to the Editor interaction analyser that would list all of the AfD disccussions in which an editor participated?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Try this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - We need more participants at AfD, not less. I've always found his replies to be helpful and constructive and he often improves articles brought to AfD when no one else bothers to try and improve them. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: this is complex and nuanced issue. Do not hit it with a large blunt instrument. E.M. Gregory is a productive content writer and diligent researcher whose contributions to AfD are, overall, a net positive. He has acknowledged, above, that he gets overinvested in some AfDs. Now give him time and space to change.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: he has had since 2016 to change. Why does this require more time? We are not throwing him out of AfD. If anything this will make his arguments more concise so he doesn't feel the need to comment 30 to 40 times.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I have seen this most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-left. But the thing is, he convinced me of his position. (I dislike with his initial response in that discussion; but the subsequent responses are fine.) This is not bludgeoning; this is careful response to arguments. We should be having more of this - i.e. actual argumentation - at AfDs, not less. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The comments are informative. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: read through WP:BLUDGEON. It does not matter if his comments are informative. He uses dozens of them to dominate an AfD and intimidate other editors with different opinions. How are you okay with that?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Many editors ignore comments made by others and ignore policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying in ever single example presented here it was just opposing arguments ignoring his comments and policies? Even though there are constructive responses and eventually pleas by editors for him to stop badgering the process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Did other editors focus on content or did they also focus on the editor? QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you read the diffs and find out? I know Gregory has directed many comments toward me to taint the discussion. I apparently have a bias toward Israeli victims because I nominated an article about an attack in Israel for deletion. I have been called an aggressive advocate for deletion of said articles and my ability to understand reason has been questioned. So, to answer your question, yes other editors, being Gregory, did focus on the editor, instead of content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agreed with one comment and it was pretty much accurate to me. The editor's initial comments are not disruptive, just the continuation of it. This is about behavior not content. Did QuackGuru want to address the behavior issue to help with the consensus or just add the !vote?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed many editors comment on the editor rather than solely the content. For example, many editors comment about an editor on the talk page but refuse to comment on actually improving the article. Then I notice editors try to ban them after they ignore policy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not following your here but I will say that comments about the editor seem to be about the editors behavior which is what ANI is for. If there are content disputes that would be for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and not this board. If what you mean is, that no one is commenting on his content that might be why. The last part seems like an accusation but again, I'm not entirely sure what you are actually saying here.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The last part example was a general comment. I was not making specific comments about any editor. At AFDs editors sometimes comment on each other rather than on the article and AFD. Then things get too heated and we end up here. QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: can you just explain more clearly why you are opposing a comment restriction? No one is questioning the informative nature of Gregory's comments. However, you must admit 30-40 comments is disruptive. Don't you agree editors who have constructive counter-arguments should be able to express them without WP:BLUDGEONing? You also have to realize how off-putting it is for users to see an excessive amount of comments from the same editor, especially if they disagree with him. They more than likely will not even !vote to avoid the hassle; that is not creating a collaborative environment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I limit my comments because I don't want someone to accuse me of disruption even when there are problems with multiple articles. I know the problems with multiple articles on my watchlist will continue for many years because they have. I know if I fix the problems I will end up at AN/I. Comments in the AFD does not prevent others from commenting or voting. If editors want a comment-limit at AFDs then it can be applied to all editors. A new section for limits on AFD discussion can be started at WP:BLUDGEON for all editors.

Generally speaking, I have seen editors mention a policy violation on the talk page and others reply by ignore policy. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"I know if I fix the problems I will end up at AN/I." Oh....I see....no actually I don't. I understand what you are claiming but I can't see how that is true. Are you under sanction restrictions or is this a general attitude about contributing to Wikipedia? Is that really fair? "Comments in the AFD does not prevent others from commenting or voting" Sometimes, just the rapid replying can cause edit conflicts and could dissuade input from just not wanting to be a part of what may look like an argument and then get caught up in disruptive behavior by replying.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If I try to fix the problems at alt-left by reverting I will get blocked or banned. Policy violations are a "content dispute". Edit warring gets editors into problems even if they are right. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Punitive punishment or not I really hope that Greg realizes that he is ticking other editors off. We get your point, you don't have to repeat the same arguments over aND over and over again ad nauseum... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, despite the fact that I do not often agree with this editor's interpretations, and despite the fact that I do find their bludgeoning to be quite annoying. I would encourage them to perhaps consolidate any rebuttals into single postings in discussions rather than responding separately to each and every argument that they disapprove of. Admins do read the comments when closing discussions, especially difficult ones, and it is in most cases not necessary (and quite annoying) to deal with the tactics that this user often employs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)

Not sure about others but I know I would be willing to change to oppose if the editor agreed to that much.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Malik Shabazz, Kingsindian, and Guy Macon: you all helped form the two-comment restriction or commented before the convenience breaks but did not express support or opposition to it. Could you do that here to help better determine consensus? Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm concerned that WP:Bludgeon, an essay, is the main argument for action a if it were policy or even a guideline. Essays are supposed to invite reflection, not to be used to "bludgeon" editors. --DHeyward (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I would say the essay was the main argument. The reporting editor stated that it was "particularly his WP:UNCIVIL edits and habit for WP:BLUDGEONing the process". While WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, WP:UNCIVIL is policy. The essay seems to refer to the editors "habit" that effects the process, so it appears to me the essay referred to something that was only a part of the issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The remedy proposed is limiting his participation to X number of comments. That's a response to "bludgeoning" not incivility. Nobody get X number of incivil comments. The inference is that multiple comments become incivil because it annoys people. But that definition is only in the essay. The essay is good for self-reflection but he cannot control how people feel about his comments. There's lots of buggery on Wikipedia but unless it rises to incivility, harassment or disruption, it's not a policy violation. There's no evidence that the AfD process has been harmed. No evidence that the outcome has been negatively affected. Some editors are annoyed which is why this discussion isn't about civility or disruption since annoyance at AfD wouldn't, by itself, be a policy violation. The sanction proposals would be quite different if this were about civility or disruption rather than bludgeoning. --DHeyward (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON is simply pointing out and defining a particular kind of WP:Disruptive editing, just as WP:Tendentious editing does, and WP:Disruptive editing is a behavioral guideline which admins quite frequently use as a blocking rationale, so I see no particular problem with WP:BLUDGEON being cited here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unfortunately there are AfDs in which multiple responses are necessary due to one or more of the participating editors deliberately misrepresenting or ignoring policy due to personal preferences. This can result in situations where only one editor has the time or patience to respond to such comments and their comments can quickly balloon into what appears to be bludgeoning, but in reality is a justified rebuttal of questionable arguments or refusal to respond to points raised. In my experience, the topic area that E.M.Gregory edits in (Israel-Palestine) is more likely than most to have dubious arguments made in AfDs, often en masse by editors with the same POV, so it's not a surprise that they have participated in several AfDs where they have made numerous comments. Number 57 10:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the work of EMG in the AFD area is helpful and not disrupting. His answer usually directed to certain user comment. If someone don't want to read it they can just skip it.--Shrike (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• To my utter unsurprise, this has turned into a political discussion, where people are claiming that the "opponents" of EMG are trying to get him because of politics and not behaviour. If ANI is to disallow complaints brought by "opponents", perhaps one should shut down ANI altogether, because that's the way most disputes start. You know, people have to actually disagree about something. Let's dispense with irrelevancies, and focus on the absolutely undisputed facts about bludgeoning.

  Let's look at this ongoing AfD about "alt-left". EMG has made 33 comments on the AfD; nobody else is even close. He has made the same point about SIGCOV 5 times, about WORDISSUBJECT 6 times, and has made "note" comments 7 times. This, this, this, this and this is repeated badgering of "delete" !votes. The last one even acknowledges that EMG is repeating their previous points.

  Perhaps someone can tell me how one can have a sensible discussion in an AfD if everyone (or even a significant number) in the AfD behaved this way. What is so important in EMG's points which can't be made just once or twice? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See, I don't see the problem with this. The reason is - and I know this is hard to believe - not all !voters read through all the previous arguments. So I can understand that he is replying with the same arguments to repeated !votes. StAnselm (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If everyone at an AfD replied to every comment they disagree with, it would mean total chaos. But this total chaos is what you are supporting. Or is it just EMG who should have such a privilege? Zero^talk 10:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing I can add to what's already been said by those opposing this proposal.SMarshall and DHeyward make particularly convincing arguments. User:Joefromrandb
• Oppose - E.M Gregory does occassionally get carried away, but, his comments at AfD are generally helpful not disruptive. If you don't like his comments, skip over them. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see a major user behavior issue here to warrant any kind of sanction whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack and character assassination

Dear administrators, I would like you to block Volunteer Marek for character assassination and personal attack. As you can see here, he is using a personal attack to argue against one of my suggestions (I started a poll and discussion on including a list of the sources used in the memo). It was a suggestion, nothing more. Of course you can have a different opinion, but you should state it with arguments and not with cyber bullying. He indicates I am a "they" and that I am part of the alt-right movement - so basically claiming my suggestion shouldn't be considered because I have the wrong ideology. Furthermore I must say that I do NOT identify with the alt-right movement, I see myself as a left-wing with special interest in equal rights for both genders (feminist and masculinist). And you can clearly see that I am NOT part of the alt-right movement: I have created the article called Gay concentration camps in Chechnya and write about feminist, LGBT and masculinist issues. Please block him for this inappropriate attack on my person (temporarily) and please delete the character assassination permanently. I am not the first he did this to, as you can see here: "Please abstain from using terms as "sketchy-ass accounts", "starting up shit", "garbage" anywhere in WP. It is against the Wiki spirit. (OTOH, granted, we are all sometimes guilty of similar transgressions, see e.g. my Block log.) [[User:Zezen|Zezen]] ([[User talk:Zezen|talk]]) 04:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)". Here another user who claims to be attacked personally.

PA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."--Rævhuld (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If an accurate description of your editing practices comes across as character assassination, you have only yourself to blame. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz You are not even an administrator, so why are you writing here? Indicating that I am part of the alt-right movement is not really an accurate description. A proper description of what I am writing about is: gender issues, LGBT content and political incidents.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Because anyone is allowed to comment here, not just admins. And when placing a comment here, be advised that not only the person you are requesting to be looked at behavior is analyzed, but yours as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rævhuld: Second HW's comment. You should read WP:NPA is some detail, and I particularly draw your attention to 'Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.' Whilst you may have provided a degree of justification, it is weak enough to suggest that little or no effort had been put into reading the actual policy and seeing if VM's remarks correlated. There will be no blocks (well, not of VM, anyway), and no deletions. Further investigation reminds me why your username is familiar. Raevhuld, your userpage is chock-full of complaints, criticisms and pieces of worthy advice, although of course they are not there now due to your fondness of the {{archive now}} template. — fortunavelut luna 12:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: You should read WP:NPA is some detail, and I particularly draw your attention to 'Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.' Whilst you may have provided a degree of justification, it is weak enough to suggest that little or no effort had been put into reading the actual policy. My userpage is not chock-full of complaints and I have never been blocked.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. The reason your userpage is not chock-full now is because you immediately archive them. So, more accurately, "your 'Archive 1' is chock-full of complaints, criticisms and pieces of worthy advice" which you seem to have delighted in not taking. And, please, it is unnecessary to quote chunks of people's posts back like that, if all you mean to do is ping them. — fortunavelut luna 13:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the archive is more balanced. Even if you take out the automated notifications. His *recent* contributions are certainly more problematic, but given anything related to the alt-right at the moment is causing all sorts of tiresome arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but which recent edits are problematic? The most "problematic" edits I did was criticizing genital mutilation using peer-reviewed articles and trying to change the article homophobia into gaycism. Both are very left-wing posts.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I am archiving everything that is older than a week. I like to have a clean talk page with only the recent talk page discussions. And I have linked to the archive page at the very top very clearly with a huge symbol. So what is the problem? You make it sound like I am hiding something. If I would hide something, why not just delete all comments I dislike, just as other users do? I mean, Volunteer Marek's talk page is totally clean, and if you read his log, you can see, he has been deleting a lot of things he disliked. Not to mention that he hasn't linked to an archive (does he have any?)--Rævhuld (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No one is required to keep archives of their talk pages (it helps), and implicitly, their talk page history serves as an article; removing talk page messages is completely fine with the understanding that the editor thus has acknowledged the talk page message was given to them (eg [102] this means that we will assume VM is aware of this discussion because VM wiped your courtesy message). --MASEM (t) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

But it is totally ok to criticize me for archiving my page?--Rævhuld (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No, and no-one did :) I did, however, comment upon the large quantity of negative feedback, and was forced to reiterate the archiving purely because you (somewhat disingenuously!) claimed to have a clean talk page. The only point I was making was, of course you have- because the contents is not there anymore. Just FYI. — fortunavelut luna 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

First, you need to provide diffs, not just a link. I looked at that section and can't see anything like you suggest. As others have said, without clear diffs, it's impossible to tell and could be treated as a personal attack against VM.

However, in the broader sense, calling out a specific editor as alt-right or any other type of ideological position left or right (when said editor hasn't clearly stated that) as a means to dismiss their contributions or suggestions is a PA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". I'd also consider in the current climate that specifically calling out someone alt-right falls under "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)"). If these are the case, that's commenting on the contributor, not the contributions, and that's not appropriate at all. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You can see a diff here. Kind regards.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Masem: It was this post, which Raevhuld now keeps removing from the talk page. as you can see, it never accuses them of having any political preferences, merely that their editing suggests a particular interest in some subjects over and above others. Playing tha ball rather than the man, as it were. — fortunavelut luna 13:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Because indicating that I am part of the alt-right movement isn't attacking the man, but playing the ball. For sure. Why couldn't he just argue against my suggestion without attacking me personal? And how are my edits alt-right? I am writing about gender equality and LGBT and terrorist attacks. How is that alt-right!? And why do you need to interpret my edits ideological, instead of just criticizing my edits? You are just trying to attack me very broadly and vage instead of actual criticizing my suggestion.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Saying you "immediately started editing articles related to alt-right, "man's rights" (sic) and terrorist attacks" is saying nothing more than- that you immediately started editing XYZ, etc. No personal attack, and saying so does not make it so. Why don't you close this thread now? I think we've talked it through enough, haven't we? — fortunavelut luna 13:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

But it isn't true. The only articles related to alt-right was those about terrorism - which I actually took a very protective status towards Muslims on. What about the many other articles I wrote about women's, men's and LGBT issues? And how is indicating that I am part of the alt-right movement actually an argument against my suggestion? I am NOT part of the alt-right movement, but your way to argue sounds very alt-right to me.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to WP:GAME WP:NPA, thank you. — fortunavelut luna 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree it falls off the bright line of an NPA (and thus inactionable). I have some other concerns but don't immediatel have time to write out at the moment. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Couple of the comments I wanted to make earlier :

• I would think this article could be considered under the GG 500/30 sanctions if an admin felt it that way. It's an intersection of tech and gender related issues, which I think could broadly fit under GG DS.
• I do think we need to balance the accusations of sock puppetry against legitimate new(ish) editors here. GG was one thing: it wasn't as mainstream, so the flood of new editors there pushing for the alternate views were likely from niche forums (4chan, reddit). The Google Memo, on the other hand, is clearly mainstream, and while I am sure that the same niche forums brigading here, from the broader public response to the Google Memo, there are definitely large numbers of people that agree/support its views, despite the slighter majority that have denounced it (eg the broader picture given in the RSes). To that end, as an open wiki, I can see a valid reason for people to come here and question about any POV issues they may see in the WP article on the topic, in contrast to the GG space. I think editors needs to be keeping a more open mind here and not presume every visitor to that page that is new and/or apparently a sleeper is trying to maliciously affect the article, and some of the behavior from VM and others presuming any editor asking about contrary views being an SPA or the like is not appropriate. Inactionable at this point but the start of the same trend that GG was on.

That said, some of the follow up comments here from Rævhuld are a bit concerning, and certainly some of VM's observations aren't out of line. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've also been subject to Volunteer Marek personally attacking me.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber

And great! Another sketchy brand new account - just like A1Qicks, just like Raevehuld, just like Ari1891adler, just like several others. You guys are burning through your sleeper accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC) 1

They're voting because they're confusing Wikipedia with whatever alt-right GamerGate subreddit they came from. The first two are newly created sketchy SPA accounts. The third one... I guess tha... never mind, just click "edit count" and then take a look at their contributions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC) 2

Really? You sure it's not the sudden appearance of all these sketchy-ass accounts with less than 100 edits starting up shit on the article and brigading the talk page? Oh wait...! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC) 3

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samsara#Google_memo_article_protection

I wasn't talking to you brand-new-single-purpose-account-with-six-edits-created-just-to-push-POV-on-articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) 4

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyakakushi46 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Continues:

*Comment Note that both User:A1Qicks and User:Keyakakushi46 are single purpose accounts with fewer than 50 edits. The latter appears to have been created solely to brigade this vote and talk page, the former looks like a straight up sleeper account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If participating in your first page is suddenly against the rules then how do you suppose you could ever get any new users? Of course it isn't but this rule seems to be specifically interpreted in such way just to discredit me. These comments Volunteer Marek makes do not further the discussion and are clear personal attacks.

More from Marek:

A brand new single purpose account knows how to throw WP:ASPERSIONS around. Right...... Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Could an admin tell him to cease this? It's is against WP:NPA and WP:CIV is borderline harassment at this point. I've asked him to stop everal times now. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• And so the pile-on begins... I took a look at the discussion the most recent VM detractor linked to, and while it's arguable that VM is a little too free with the accusations, what's not really arguable is that the accusations are spot-on; This is a highly suspicious account with a dubious ability to improve the project. There's also something to be said for giving a little leeway to an experienced editor who is responding to constant accusations of hypocrisy, POV pushing and lying by an account with fewer edits than I have pounds in my trousers (Relax: I'm taking about my hammer). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I think Rævhuld was confused about who you replied to since you didn't indent your comment at a ll so it looks like it is directed at him. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Spot on? So indicating that a person like me, who is a LGBT supporter and writing for women's, men's and homosexuals rights part is part ofthe alt-right is spot on? No, that is just bullshit. Especially if you take into account how many alt-right trolls I had to deal with here on Wikipedia. --Rævhuld (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you read my comments or just fly off the handle as soon as you realized I was defending VM? I was obviously responding to the comment above mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I also wonder if this is related to a now deleted SPI that was raised recently regarding VM. Wondering if we have a sock farm on our hands in a different way. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at my account, you can see, that your fantasy is far away from reality.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have no dog in this fight, but this: [103] is not helping. Maineartists (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That I suggested to add Hjernevask to "See also"? Or that I politely pointed out, that VM seems to have a vendetta against my person? He claimed that my suggestion was "disruptive"--Rævhuld (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please tell Raevhuld to stop messing around with my comments on the talk page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please tell Volunteer Marek that saying things like "don't be ridiculous" or using the term "stupid" all the time is offensive and users who are attacked have the right to remove it?--Rævhuld (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• There is clearly an issue with sleeper accounts, clearly SPA canvassed from off-site etc alt-right activists showing up at the moment. No comment if VM is justified in this particular case, but as a general theme its causing a number of issues across various articles. The POV push to remove describing Alt-right figures as 'alt-right' because they are only now realizing that to large portions of the public 'alt-right' means 'white nationalist/supremacist/racist/misogynist/homophobic' etc is hitting a lot of biographies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As the article founder of the Gay concentration camps in Chechnya article, I am clearly not alt-right. All my contributions have to all time been very left-wing - I stand up for LGBT and equal rights. And when I write about terrorism, I am actually not attacking Muslims, but rather the opposite:protecting them. Non the less, attacking me is neither all right nor an argument in this debate. If you think one of my contributions are wrong, you are welcome to debate it on my discussion page or pinging me on the discussion page of the article. As long as you don't call me names or claim that I would be part of the alt-right movement.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: The concern with our usage of "alt-right" is that we use the most mild definitions (e.g. opposition to political correctness) when applying the label, but the most severe definition in the article ("reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism"). The majority of subjects we describe as alt-right are not described in RS as supporting white nationalism. This is a legitimate and serious BLP problem. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That however is not an issue of our making. If reliable sources describe someone as alt-right, that is not a BLP violation to describe them as such (depending on circumstances either attributed or LABEL). That the alt-right do not want to be lumped in with white nationalists is a problem of their own making by embracing a political ideology that has a wide array of negative associations. There is a relevant discussion at Milo Yiannopoulos talkpage regarding 'Alt-lite'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem of internal inconsistency is entirely of our making. Policy allows discretion. When that discretion is pushed to one end in our description of the ideology and the other in our description of individuals, a solution within policy exists and it becomes our responsibility to solve it.

There is another relevant discussion at the NPOV noticeboard (link). James J. Lambden (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Raevhuld now appears to have resorted to trolling: Unnecessary templating ([104], [105]) and refactoring of comments ([106], [107], [108], [109]) such as this are little short of disruptive. — fortunavelut luna 16:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Trolling. Please read the article. I removed personal attacks, or do you really think it is all right to call people stupid or ridiculous?--Rævhuld (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you make a stupid argument, VM is under no requirement not to point this out. The fact that you insist upon reading "this is a stupid comment" as "you are stupid" does you no favors. It should be obvious to anyone that smart people can make stupid comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling people alt-right, even though they obviously are left-wing, and stating that an argument is "stupid" or "ridiculous" without trying to disprove it is clearly a personal attack and disruptive behaviour and against WP:TONE.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

They could have meant alt-left and got the terms confused in regards to someone who is left-wing. Calling an argument stupid or ridiculous without trying to disprove it is not a personal attack unless it is directed at someone, whether that be you or another edit. I agree that is however disruptive and not constructive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Raevhuld is upset but should not be editing others' comments.

VM is disrupting the talk page with personal comments: (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal)

Raevhuld should be reminded not to edit others' comments.

VM should be reminded that article talk pages are only for discussing article improvement. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Raevhuld should also be reminded, in the bluntest clearest possible way, to desist from behaviour that could be easily perceived as trolling. GoldenRing pointed this out to them, but this has not seemed to deter them from continuing in exactly the same manner. — fortunavelut luna 17:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

He wrote his opinion and I asked him into it. How disruptive ... and yes, I wrote on your talk page, because you called me a "troll" with no actual evidence for it. I called you out on it, saying that you could just write on my talk page if you think I am doing something wrong. Oh no, how disruptive. It seems like you are very disruptive yourself.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But if we focus exclusively on the actions of upset editor and ignore the actions that cause them upset we pratically guarantee a continuous stream of upset editors. That is no way to minimize disruption. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Really, I do not think that being 'upset' is much of a justification, since the most disruptive behaviour they have demonstrated actuallyonly began after this ANI thread turned in way the OP did not want! — fortunavelut luna 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you get concrete on that? Which disruptive behaviour did I do? Calling out on bullies isn't disruptive. A guy bullying people for being new or just in general writing mean things to people instead of staying cool and focused, that is disruptive behaviour. Meanwhile you seem all too willing to ignore this particular user and all too willing to attack me.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say it was justified. I said it was an all-too-common reaction. When the all-too-common reaction to a policy violation (WP:NPA) creates disruption, focusing exclusively on the consequences and ignoring the cause guarantees future problems. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

James, everyone here knows you hate VM. You're not going to get support for this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the dislike goes both ways. On my talk page at least, James J. Lambden appeared to be the milder mannered of the two. Samsara 12:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Raevhuld

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

---

I have blocked Raevhuld for 48 hours, essentially to stop the stream of time-wasting templates. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you were so very right about templates and I apologise for responding to your wisdom with low wit. I propose that this user be blocked indefinitely, with an unblock when they can convince myself or any other uninvolved admin that they can edit collaboratively. GoldenRing (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - That editor has been nothing but trouble since the start, just as I said he would be, here on ANI, almost six months ago. Sometimes I wish people would listen... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And here's another ANI-report about Rævhuld (not by me, though) that was never acted on. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I tuned off to this editor as soon as I read this comment awhile ago about Germans -- and we all know what this was referring to. He occasionally makes constructive edits but I do not believe they counteract such odd behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I was expecting this a little sooner, as I have been keeping an eye on him since long. Few diffs concerning the accused can be found on Mz7's talkpage, a link to the conversation with Mz7 can be found here: User talk:NeilN#My old discussion_with_Mz7. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the comment editing is clearly disruptive in a bannable way. I would rather support a 2 week ban, but see no reason to believe the editor is willing to be cooperative. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per other editors. Stikkyy t/c 05:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support (somewhat obviously perhaps); but I'd like to emphasise that I actually think GoldenRing was restrained in their response, as, going by Raevhuld's response, they still don't understand the issues. — fortunavelut luna 06:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support the indefinite block proposed in this section. Thanks, GoldenRing, for the initial action and for bringing it back here for further consideration. I think your proposed action is necessary, given the history. -- Begoon 06:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I have responded to his unblock request, declining it, and have extended the block to an indefinite one. Their edit history shows to me that there is a history of harassment with them, however it's coming FROM them, not towards them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Uh, what did the editor do which was so egregious that it merited an indef block, especially with zero entries in their block log prior to this incident? If the editor has simply lost it in the reaction to this affair, perhaps one can keep the length to one week or something. But indef seems extremely harsh. Before implementing an indef block, other remedies like topic bans and IBANs ought to be considered. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  Did you read what was linked in the first 3 support !votes and look at the user's entire editing history and talk page/archives? My !vote certainly wasn't about the editor "simply los[ing] it in the reaction to this affair", and I'm certain that RickinBaltimore's action was not either. The editor has been consistently disruptive, from their early edits right up until this point in time. An indefinite block can be appealed, and if they can convince an admin they understand the issues and will not repeat them it can be lifted. A fixed time ban which simply expires does not provide this step, which is just as likely to be useful for the editor as for the community, in the long term. -- Begoon 02:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support temporary block, strong oppose for indef block - Indef block at this stage is way too harsh in my opinion. If he simply lost his cool, give him a 3-4 week or so block and if he does this again, then indef him. Jdcomix (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Indef block due to which contributions?

I would like to learn more about the contributions that led to this indef block. RickinBaltimore? Samsara 11:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samsara, be happy to chime in. As stated earlier, there have been concerns regarding this editor's behavior going back about six months. (see here: [111] and here: [112]). Additionally, there was this comment that TGS mentioned prior: [113] that was a bit conerning to say the least, in essence hinting that the admins on the German Wikipedia were Nazis. They have been disruptive over all, and definitely not anywhere near a net positive for the project. Other concerns were raised about the editor in May as well with relation to their editing. (See here: [114]). It's my opinion, and of other editors, that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia based on this on going behavior.

I will say however, that of course I'm transparent when it comes to my work, and if it's deemed the block is in the end too harsh by the community as a whole, I'll scale it back of course, however I don't think that's in the best interests of Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The standard offer is always a choice as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And that I wouldn't be opposed to of course. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Why escalate from GoldenRing's originally proposed block condition of "unblock when they can convince myself or any other uninvolved admin that they can edit collaboratively" to "standard offer"? Samsara 18:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, they're pretty much the same thing, except the standard offer outlines it better. You can still send an unblock request a day after being given the standard offer, and if that unblock request convinces the admin who takes it... Voila. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user's unblock request was further proof that they failed to realize their problems. They only convinced others to believe the temp block was not enough.

What was the reason why I was blocked? I don't know. I just reported Volunteer Marek, who personally attacked me and other users - like instead of coming with arguments, he assumed the ideology of left-wing me and wrote "ridiculous" or "stupid" under comments. Furthermore he attacked users for being new. But instead of actually blocking bullies, Wikipedia just blocks people being bullied. Without even giving an actual reasoning. Great. Rævhuld (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

— nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The standard offer was proposed after the unblock request was denied, so without further actions from the user. The standard offer includes a six month waiting period that was not part of the originally proposed block conditions. Samsara 19:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As the essay itself states, standard offer is just a suggestion, there's no requirement to follow it. ansh666 19:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing ref improv templates & adding non-RS by User:WikiEditCrunch

WikiEditCrunch (talk · contribs) has been removing {{refimprove}} from articles without making any improvements or adequate explanation:

• The Doors: "Template removed:Plenty of sources;All check out;Outdated template"[115]
• Babelsberg Studio: "Outdated template:Enough references"[116]
• Meredith Corporation: "Page has enough references for verification"[117]
• Robby Krieger: "Enough verification refs"[118]
• Roll with It (Oasis song): "Enough sources" (actually dmy temp, refimprov was next)[119]

However, it is a series of removals, reverts, and addition of problematic (non-RS, not-in-source, etc.) references to The Ocean (Led Zeppelin song) that prompted this report. As commented on Talk:The Ocean (Led Zeppelin song)#2017 referencing problems & user:WikiEditCrunch:

"The article has sections of unreferenced text, including quotes. Some sentences read like commentary and appear to be WP:Original research. WikiEditCrunch has been removing {{refimprove}} without adding WP:Reliable sources that support the text and they have added some links to user-generated websites (all bare URLs). Specific edits include:

• 20 July 2017 – removed refimprove with no changes to article; edit summary: "Deleted unnecces template";[120] was reverted.
• 20 July 2017 – removed new refimprove & added two bare URL inline cites to "It was deleted from the set list thereafter" sentence (neither ref mentions this); edit summary: "Issue resolved:Added additional sources".[121]
• 16 August 2017 – added "Live performances" section without refs & improperly linked album.[122]
• 16 August 2017 – removed new refimprove & dmy templates; edit summary "Bot mistake";[123] was reverted.
• 17 August 2017 – removed new refimprove & added two bare URL inline cites to ""The Ocean" refers to the sea of fans seen from the stage at Led Zeppelin concerts, to whom this song was dedicated" (neither user-generated website ref mentions this is RS); added bare URL inline cite to "In concert, Plant always updated the lyric to reflect her current age, as captured on the Led Zeppelin DVD which features a performance of the song at Madison Square Garden in 1973" (apparently OK); added bare URL inline cite to "It is also part of the bands live concert soundtrack album The Song Remains the Same (album)" (duplicated a link to a video that was already in "External links"); edit summary: "Added more sources;Enough refs".[124]

The user has been warned twice on their talk page with {{uw-tdel2}} & {{uw-tdel3}} (see User talk:WikiEditCrunch#7/17). Refimprove templates will continue to be re-added and problematic sources removed as necessary.

— /s/ Ojorojo 17 August 2017"

Since then, we have been going back and forth.[125] I tried adding a RS referenced quote about "the sea of fans" (from the original source), but WikiEditCrunch reverted/replaced it with a user-generated source.[126]

WikiEditCrunch has been editing for 2+ years and has rated/assessed a lot of articles. They should be familiar with WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Citing sources, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, and basic copyediting (The Song Remains the Same (album) is written as The Song Remains the Same in articles, punctuation, spacing, etc.). However, these and other policies/guidelines are not followed. And now, they've added {{uw-disruptive1}} to my talk page?

—Ojorojo (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Being discussed with the editor. Alex Shih^Talk 01:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiEditCrunch continues to add bare URL citations to sources that don't appear to support the text.[127] Additionally, they have once again removed {{refimprove}} ("Thre article is now well sopurced with reliable/independent/known sources."), despite the fact that there are several statements in the article that are not referenced ("Some speculate that ...", "Others are of the opinion ...", etc.). At a minimum, they should be restricted from removing any reference/citation/source related templates from articles. (see also their Request for page protection for The Ocean (song)[128]). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletions and edit warring across celebrity articles by Hillbillyholiday

Noted issues

There are some recent mass deletions that I view as disruptive. As seen in the edit histories of the Jennifer Lawrence, Amanda Bynes, Megan Fox, Shia LaBeouf, Kanye West and Britney Spears articles, Hillbillyholiday has been mass deleting a lot of valid content from celebrity articles and edit warring over the matter with a number of editors; links are here, here, here, here, here and here. I addressed Hillbillyholiday about it on their talk page, stating, "Some of the content should perhaps be cut, but you should give editors a chance to assess these matters, especially when it's WP:GAs or WP:FAs involved, and especially when it's just an issue of trimming things and/or rewording things. Quotes can be summarized, for example. I am well aware that you cut things that you consider trivial or fluff, but Wikipedia editing is not supposed to be based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT." Hillbillyholiday's response was that he or she is willing to listen, but that the content is "mountains of unimportant, irrelevant garbage" that "have reintroduced clear BLP violations and highly questionable sources" and that "The trouble is, most decent folk here are too scared of making drastic but necessary cuts, and too many articles are guarded by their creators, who are loathe to see anything go, often in the mistaken belief that because there is a star on the page it must be fine. Some of these bios got their 'GA' status nearly a decade ago and haven't been reassesed since. The whole concept of FA/GA is basically meaningless, and it's rather embarrassing having to use the terms in an argument, but if these articles are the best Wikipedia has to offer, or are seen as models for other bios, then we should all be ashamed." I stated that if Hillbillyholiday is willing to discuss, he or she would not be mass deleting non-BLP violating content without first addressing the matter on article talk pages and discussing it. He or she would not be edit warring all over the place. I also asked Hillbillyholiday what WP:BLP violations are the issue? I pointed to this Britney Spears deletion, for example, and commented: "In that edit summary, you stated that there is a WP:BLP violation. If so, then you should delete the WP:BLP violation, not delete chunks and chunks of material because you don't like it. We lose a lot of important material with these huge chunks you make to these articles. Overquoting is easily remedied." I also noted that I get Hillbillyholiday's point about WP:GAs and WP:FAs, but "WP:OWN is clear about treading carefully on WP:FA articles. In a lot of these cases, it doesn't matter that the article reached WP:FA years ago. There is still the fact that a lot of care went into these articles, including a lot of discussion about how they should be formatted."

When there is back and forth edit warring, and content deletion without giving editors a chance to justify their edits, and when some editors can barely catch their breath because they watch a number of these articles, I just don't see how these mass deletions are helpful (unless cutting WP:BLP violations and/or unencyclopedic content). Pinging the following involved editors: SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0, Mattbuck, Sundayclose, RektGoldfish and FlightTime. I'm sure there are more editors, but I haven't yet looked at all the other recent deletions Hillbillyholiday has made and whether there have been objections and edit warring regarding them. Also, Hillbillyholiday already knew that I would be starting this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I was only involved with the Jennifer Lawrence page. Regardless of overall article quality, Flyer is right that mass deletions (except for things like blatant BLP violations) should at least be discussed beforehand. Edit warring only makes things worse. I thought about bringing Hillbilly to WP:AN3 for it, but wasn't sure at the time if the user had reverted enough to warrant a block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this thread. It's particularly outrageous when such mass deletion is done for high-quality FA-class articles, and in the case of Lawrence, when it was featured on the bloody main page! On top of that, taking a snarky dig at my support for feminism is outrageous. I understand if this editor has issues with the sexualisation of women in mainstream media, but does Hillbilly really think that attacking well-meaning editors will help solve the issue? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing new to add here, my comments can be seen at Hillbillyholiday's talk, I am here to support Flyer22 Reborn concerns and the starting of this thread. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I had problems with Hillbillyholiday on Amanda Bynes, where Hillbillyholiday removed the "Personal life" section almost in it's entirety (about one-third of the article). Hillbillyholiday's only explanation was in an edit summary: "way too much coverage of mental health issues, perhaps deserves reporting but briefly and in a sensitive manner with good sources". This subject's mental health issues have been in the forefront of her public life for the last five years; she has not worked as an actress for the last seven years. The content that Hillbillyholiday removed was sourced to NBC News, CBS News, and the L.A. Times, among others. Hillbillyholiday has not made any attempt at discussion. Hillbillyholiday has deleted the same content four times in the last three days, including the most recent revert of RektGoldfish. Hillbillyholiday seems to have ownership issues with a number of articles; when told that there might be a discussion here, Hillbillyholiday's response was "I doubt I'll be participating". Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, per that response, I don't think Hillbillyholiday is taking the problems others have expressed with his or her mass deletions seriously. Like I recently stated, "That supposed lack of concern, as though it's fine and dandy to keep doing this, is one of the problems. [...] Hillbillyholiday's reasons are not always very good. Hillbillyholiday often removes stuff on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis, which is not how we should edit. See this dispute at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence? I agree with those who challenged Hillbillyholiday. Some stuff that Hillbillyholiday removes is very relevant and should be retained or simply trimmed or reworded, not deleted altogether. Some may not like that Jennifer Lawrence is a sex symbol, but it is a part of her notability and public image. For some removals across these articles, I don't think that Hillbillyholiday is completely in the wrong, but I do think that he or she is often going about them in the wrong way. When multiple editors disagree and are reverting you, for example, you should not keep removing the content unless there is some WP:BLP violation or some other serious issue. Edit warring is disruptive, and edit warring against multiple editors usually results in that lone editor getting blocked; so, if the editor does have a valid case for the deletions, then nothing is resolved except for the disruption.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0, Mattbuck, Sundayclose, RektGoldfish and FlightTime, it's likely that the best thing to be done in this case is report Hillbillyholiday's edit warring at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. As seen with this edit, Hillbillyholiday has reverted yet again, this time at the Shia LaBeouf article, despite the section I started at the Shia LaBeouf talk page. Hillbillyholiday clearly thinks he (or she) can do what he (or she) wants in this case, as is clear by the editor still taking hatchet jobs to articles and not even bothering to comment here. Hillbillyholiday is clearly waiting for this WP:ANI thread to blow over. If none of you want to start the case at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, I will. After that, you all can weigh in there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(It's he.) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User has been reported at AN3. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: When someone's edit history comes up a sea of undiscussed massive deletions [129], including of cited information, and undiscussed (or snarkily and dismissively discussed) edit-wars to keep the material deleted, that's a problem. If it doesn't stop, I suggest a topic-ban on direct editing of BLPs (at least until the crusade dies down). Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Really? You'd keep stuff like this? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not a massive deletion. And we all know that the Daily Mail is a poor source for WP:BLPs; it's been discussed to death, after all, and we had a big RfC on it earlier this year. Hillbillyholiday started that RfC. The problem is the massive deletions of non BLP-violating material by Hillbillyholiday and edit warring over it. Hillbillyholiday has a very strict and over-the-top view on what BLP violations are, and it all started around the time a certain editor/administrator was recklessly removing content sourced to People magazine and similar and Hillbillyholiday was emboldened and jumped on the bandwagon. Hillbillyholiday was wrong then, and he (or she) is often wrong now. A lot of decent content is lost because of Hillbillyholiday's odd views of WP:BLP and also because Hillbillyholiday simply removes anything he or she does not like. And the editor is still edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I'm done with this editor, their constant "I know what's best" attitude and WP:OWN issues are too much. I suggest they replace the {{retired}} on their talk and take it to heart. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, you have said that it is fine to have a section on a BLP entitled "Mental health" which uses sources such as msn.com and usmagazine.com to provide facts about the subject's "depression", "paranoia", hospitalization, and diagnoses. (Talk:Kanye_West#Recent_deletions)

You think saying someone had a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice is acceptable. (WP:BLP/N#Britney Spears)

Forgive me if I don't put much store by your comments when it comes to appropriate sourcing for BLPs. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how anyone can evaluate the sourcing on these articles so fast. --Moxy (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday, so you have finally graced us with your presence. Like I relayed before, get your story right when reporting on what I've stated. To repeat what I stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard: "As for the Kanye West matter, I clearly stated [...] The sources for the Mental health section of the West article are solid, except for one source. The sources are WP:BLP-compliant. So I am right about the sourcing. Whether or not the content should stay is another matter." I did not state that the section was fine. I stated that sources in that section are WP:BLP-compliant. I also stated that I had been concerned about the section before and had almost removed it. I also stated "we can ask about it at the WP:BLP noticeboard." If we are judging the section purely on sources, those sources, except for consequenceofsound.net, are fine. Here is a Billboard source from the section; it notes that West stated that he contemplated suicide. Not a WP:BLP violation. This The Los Angeles Times source states that West was persuaded by authorities to commit himself to a hospital. Not a WP:BLP violation. This Entertainment Tonight source states that West is formally undiagnosed. Not a WP:BLP violation. And this CNN source states that West was released from the hospital. Not a WP:BLP violation.

And I've explained the Spears matter well enough.

Stop trying to make it seem as though your massive deletions are normally removing egregious BLP violations and therefore you should not be sanctioned; that simply is not the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I never said CNN, Billboard, et al. were unreliable or BLP violating -- stop putting words in my mouth. I simply asked whether msn.com and usmagazine.com were acceptable sources for a subject's mental health issues, and you said they were ok. You also reckon "meltdown" (source: MTV) is a suitable descriptor. If you can't see how these opinions are problematic, I think you may need a topic-ban from BLP-related articles. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

And how exactly is MSN a BLP-violating source? Same goes for Us Weekly. Like I stated to you before, Us Weekly is the same category of sourcing as People magazine, which I remind you yet again was deemed to be generally fine for WP:BLPs. As I noted back then, that People RfC should not have focused solely on People since the disagreement was about People magazine and sources like it.

And, as you have no doubt seen, EdJohnston has also stated that he does not consider the Spears matter to be a WP:BLP violation.

The only topic ban here should be yours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• My recent edits speak for themselves. I'm done here. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You state that you are done, but I guarantee that you are going to wait for this matter to cool down and then start up your disruptive deletions and edit warring again, which is why I think that EdJohnston or some other administrator should propose an immediate block if (rather when) you start back up again. The slap on the wrist is not enough. I've seen this type of disruption from a number of editors. They almost always start back up again after things have cooled down. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Hillbillyholiday does and has done valuable work in refining and enforcing our most important rule. While I recognise that the intentions of Flyer22 Reborn are undoubtedly good, edits like this one and this one are problematic (note the edit summary on the latter). I caution this user that they are likely to be blocked if they attempt to edit-war material that they themselves acknowledge breaches BLP into articles. There are better ways to challenge a deletion that you disagree with. --John (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Thank you John for putting this into the correct perspective. He "does and has done valuable work in refining and enforcing" and it is out of order to label him as a vandal; little doubt why so many well-intentioned, enthusiastic editors walk away from Wikipedia. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 20:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• • • John, you are WP:INVOLVED. Should I point to all of the ways that you are WP:INVOLVED, like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#User:John and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPs), or User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 14#Continuing disruption by User:John on biography articles, or this comment from I JethroBT noting the following: "John's arguments were not persuasive during the RfC and they shouldn't be elsewhere if that is the basis for disagreement."? A number of editors, including NeilN, Binksternet, NE Ent, Rivertorch, Johnuniq and Herostratus were of the opinion that you either acted disruptively and/or were WP:INVOLVED when it came to me. So I was waiting for you to show up since it was your massive deletions and misguided BLP assertions, as seen in that ANI case, that inspired Hillbillyholiday's disruption. It was also you, as the sole editor, who voted "No" to People magazine, while everyone else voted "Yes."

Neither this nor this are WP:BLP violations. In the latter case, the only supposed BLP violation that Hillbillyholiday noted is "public meltdown," but editors, including EdJohnston, disagree with Hillbillyholiday that use of "public meltdown" is a BLP violation in the case of the breakdown/meltdown that Spears acknowledges she had.

So nice try when it comes to trying to point the finger in my direction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm. So what did A lot of this is not WP:BLP violations in any way. Do stop mass deleting content, especially on WP:GAs or WP:FAs. mean then? I suggest you modify your own behaviour, or it'll get you blocked. I can't really make it any simpler than that. --John (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, so you interpret me stating "A lot of this is not WP:BLP violations in any way" as stating that there were some BLP violations in the content? I was not. I was giving Hillbillyholiday the benefit of the doubt even though I did not see any BLP violations. And, as we can see, the only "BLP violation" he cited is "public meltdown," which is something others do not agree is a BLP violation. And even if there had been a BLP violation, it does not justify his mass deletions at that article. That is why both FlightTime and Softlavender also reverted. It is why EdJohnston stated, "If it turns out that Hillbilyholiday engages in edit warring on other articles such as Shia LaBeouf, then someone could file a new AN3 report specifying that article. Massive content removal from BLP articles on the grounds of general article quality isn't supported by WP:3RRNO as an exception to our edit warring rules. Such removals need editor consensus."

So your threat of blocking me is uncalled for. Not only that, it is in direct conflict with the WP:INVOLVED policy. Just like all those years ago with your silly threats about blocking me over use of People magazine, you are back to threatening me. I see that you haven't changed. And let's not pretend that you are talking about someone else blocking me; your tone, including in your edit summary, clearly shows that you intend to be the one doing the blocking. I suggest you modify your line of thinking, or otherwise be sanctioned for administrative abuse. Any block you throw on me would be undone in a matter of minutes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what your edit summary meant. As for the rest of it, you've been warned and should now either retire and reconsider or save it for the unblock request. Your choice. I won't reply to you again here. --John (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So not only do you not admit that you are wrong, you double down on your block threat? I repeat: A number of editors found you to be wrong all those years ago and noted that you are WP:INVOLVED when it comes to me. You were wrong all those years ago. And you are wrong now. You have not at all shown how Hillbillyholiday is in the right. You are simply here making baseless threats that are obviously unbecoming of an administrator, all because of your silly grudge and your skewed interpretation of what BLP violations are. You really think you are untouchable, don't you? You remember that NeilN was one of the main editors challenging you before, right? You do know that he is an administrator now, don't you? Do you think that he would not unblock me if you blocked me? Because I'm willing to bet that he would. I've been waiting for you to retire for years, but we can't all get our wish. Either way, block me and see what happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22, I am very surprised to hear this kind of taunting coming from you. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's understandable when dealing with taunting such as "I suggest you modify your own behaviour, or it'll get you blocked. I can't really make it any simpler than that." and "you've been warned and should now either retire and reconsider or save it for the unblock request. Your choice. I won't reply to you again here." Both of the comments make it seem like I was the one being wholly disruptive and that I am a detriment to BLP articles. John did all this years ago because I was using and defending People magazine. It took NeilN starting an RfC about People magazine to stop the block threats (John's misguided threats to block me) and John's mass deletions of material sourced to People magazine. And now he's portraying this matter as though Hillbillyholiday is in the right and that I'm halting Hillbillyholiday's good contributions, despite all evidence to the contrary, including what EdJohnston stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. I think you've seen me be frustrated before; my above responses to John are tame in comparison to some things I've stated about him before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• There has to be a middle way here. EdJohnston says the Britney Spears material isn't a BLP vio; I take them at their word. However, it is hard to deny that even the non-BLP violating material in these articles is just egregiously excessive, and even when not sourced to the Daily Mail or papers like that, it's gossip tabloids. No one, least of all me, wants to go through those articles and their endless chatter about boyfriends and girlfriends and whatnot, though I did remove the names and dates of birth of children in Megan Fox--even if verified, that kind of information is just totally unnecessary; "leave the children out of it" is a matter of convention, as far as I'm concerned. And while Hillbillyholiday may have been guilty of 3RR, we should note that in Amanda Bynes none of his reverters had a decent explanation--"read BRD" is not a decent explanation, it's just tag-teaming. I reverted the last editor, who also gave no explanation, and who seems to have no interest on Wikipedia besides that one single person (a lot of this stuff is just creepy, really).

  We should really look better at such content. "Not a BLP violation" does not mean that certain BLP info should be in our articles. "It's verified" (by People, US Weekly, etc.) doesn't mean it should be included. Even if HBH is incorrect in this or that article, he is not an idiot r a vandal and should be taken seriously. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Hear, hear. We are not a bureaucracy and should be careful of any tendency to force an editor with clue and taste away in favour of retaining creepy tabloid kludge about "celebrities". Be better if no tools had to be used but looking at some of the behaviour, my hopes aren't high. --John (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, I agree that we should not be including any and everything. I certainly was not arguing that. I have made big cuts at celebrity articles over the years, but not in a way that anyone has deemed disruptive. And the cuts were never based on me simply not liking the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As for Amanda Bynes, Sundayclose (above) did give a rationale for reverting Hillbillyholiday, before Hillbillyholiday had responded on the talk page at the WP:BLP noticeboard. I haven't been involved with the Amanda Bynes article, but I do think that the content should have been significantly trimmed instead of deleted completely. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with drmies here, a lot of the stuff that goes into some of our pop culture articles is often entirely too much detail and reads like a gossip sheet rather than an encyclopedia. It appears that things have become a bit entrenched on both sides, but calling each other vandals isn't going to help matters. Try discussing the actual content and justifying why it needs to be included rather than being upset that another editor has removed it. The world will not end if something gossipy stays out of an article for a while ...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, thanks for weighing in. Discussion, or at least discussion first, is what I and others are asking of Hillbillyholiday. Look at the aforementioned Jennifer Lawrence discussion. Editors were trying to discuss/reason with Hillbillyholiday, but he kept reverting. And that article is FA, and it didn't become FA years ago; it became FA earlier this year. Experienced editors brought that article to FA by working together, and more care should be taken with FA articles. Like I stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, Hillbillyholiday is only interested in discussing if his version of the article is in place, or if he intends to revert again anyway. It often takes Hillbillyholiday being reverted by multiple editors before Hillbillyholiday even decides to take the matter to the talk page. Although editors tried to reason with Hillbillyholiday at the Jennifer Lawrence talk page, it is like he was not truly listening and was bent on having things his way. See Krimuk2.0's account above; Krimuk2.0 was insulted by Hillbillyholiday in one instance. The content being cut at these article is not simply gossip; a lot of it is a part of what has made these celebrities notable or is a significant aspect of their notability or public image. One aspect of Lawrence's public image is the view that she is physically attractive. And Amanda Bynes is known more for legal troubles than acting these days. I am not opposing cutting gossip; I am opposing sweeping, drastic cuts, especially when they include material that should be retained, and edit warring to keep the cuts in place. I edit with editors who make significant cuts; SNUGGUMS is one, but SNUGGUMS is always pleasant to work with, even when we disagree. SNUGGUMS takes the time to listen. And, like I recently stated, is one the best editors we have keeping these celebrity articles in check. At John's suggestion and my support, the Britney Spears article is now undergoing a WP:GA reassessment started by SNUGGUMS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, please forgive me for commenting. I already said that I wouldn't, as I have had no involvement in those particular articles. But can't we all now agree that the deleting and reverting behavior that you have raised here has now stopped? Or are you now seeking some kind of punitive action to be taken against Hillbillyholiday? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I stated above (my "15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)" post) and at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard that I think that Hillbillyholiday will resume this behavior. For years, I've seen editors do this -- stop the disruptive behavior and let the matter cool down and then resume afterward. I've seen Hillbillyholiday do this as well; he is no stranger to slow-burn edit wars. Hillbillyholiday has shown time and again that he believes that he is right and that everyone else is wrong and that he will continue to make sweeping deletions even at the objections of multiple editors, sometimes incorrectly citing that there is a WP:BLP violation. So I stand by my earlier statement that I think that an administrator should propose an immediate block if (rather when) Hillbillyholiday starts back up again. But I know that since he has stopped the disruption for now, it is likely that this thread will be closed with no action. I have no doubt that we will be back here again in the future, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you now seeking some kind of punitive, or "pre-emptive", action to be taken against Hillbillyholiday now? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply, but since FinalPoint1988 pinged me below, I'll go ahead and state that I feel that I've been clear on what I think should happen. Yes, I believe that Hillbillyholiday should receive a stern warning to not engage in this type of disruption again; this affected multiple articles, not just one. But, again, I am not expecting that any action will be taken since Hillbillyholiday has gone into temporary hiding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So sad to see such overreactions between established/very valuable contributors such as Hillbillyholiday, Flyer22 Reborn, Martinevans123 and John; like Gareth Griffith-Jones said, such things can trigger the sudden absence of great editors like Hillbillyholiday (also an overreaction), In my personal POV, if some established editor removes some "doubtful material" in the future, (providing good reasons in the summary), it would be a good idea to take the matter to the talk page, before reverting him/her, I agree with Drmies, not all the sourced info should be included, there are tons and tons of fan sites and gossip magazines for such chattery...and of course, none of you is a vandal for reverting others..Take it easy...and happy to see Flyer, John and SNUGGUMS taking actions on the matter. FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure how my input counts as "overreaction". I was just seeking some clarity. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And I certainly don't view my and others' views of Hillbillyholiday's disruption to be overreactions either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I am seeing 1RRs (Hillbillyholiday removes 1 or more large segments, someone restores all or partial, Hillbillyholiday removes again, another restores, and that's it, no more reverts), so I'm not sure if this is necessarily edit warring. I think it is appropriate BOLD behavior on BLPs with questionable material, but not the type of BLP material that 3RR exemptions would apply to (that is: it is sourced, and not necessarily contentious, but is it really appropriate/necessary to include in a BLP?) I think Hillbillyholiday should be trouted to avoid the 1RR and take to talk page when things are reverted, or better, take to talk page after removing such large parts of the article, just to let other editors know their concerns beyond the scope of an edit summary message, but the removals all do appear to be within proper good faith of what BLP is meant to help protect. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The number of reverts by Hillbillyholiday at Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Amanda Bynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) show differently. And WP:Edit warring is not defined solely by WP:3RR anyway. And it has been applied to edit warring across multiple articles. As for things that should be retained, I stand by my "13:06/13:11, 21 August 2017" commentary above. And I see that editors are disagreeing at the WP:BLP noticeboard regarding the Amanda Bynes case. I am pleased that TonyBallioni took the time to analyze the matter and restore some of the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Short break and back at it - FlightTime (open channel) 22:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The user has mass deleted sourced information on the page for Jeremy Meeks and due to multiple edits, it's not possible to revert back the information that's been deleted. AnonUser1 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's "possible to revert". One would simply edit and save the version prior to the consecutive edits, or use Twinkle's "revert to this version", with an edit summary. Simple. Of course, I'm not saying you should do that - you should talk about it first - I'm just saying that your implication that multiple, consecutive edits make reversion harder isn't really correct. You had 8 consecutive edits just prior to Hillbilly's 4, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. -- Begoon 11:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend anyone wishing to retain their editing privilege not to revert this series of edits. I'll go further; anyone who even thinks this was a loss to the article should not be anywhere near a BLP article. John (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@John: Regardless if you're correct or not it is very un-administrator like to make a blatant community threat such as this. Are you open to recall ? And before anyone goes off on me, I've been here almost 9 years and this is the first (and last, hopefully) time I've called anyone anything. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Community threat? This is me doing the job I was chosen to do! The tabloid trash that was removed from this article on a living person should never have been put there. Removing it was a good thing. Restoring it would be a bad thing, and knowingly restoring it would be a blockworthy act. If you genuinely don't know good from bad, or what BLP means, it's far better to stay completely away from biographies of living people. John (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I happen to think John is right here. And I'm pretty sure we can't say "regardless" like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday is back to removing a lot of material that he does not like, such as at Rihanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it can be argued that the material he removed at the Rihanna article needed a significant trim. The Jeremy Meeks stuff was sourced to a lot of tabloid sources -- sources that the Wikipedia community has repeatedly deemed unsuitable for BLPs. So Hillbillyholiday is making some good edits; I never disputed that. It's the sweeping/indiscriminate removals, edit warring and incorrect BLP justifications I have had (and still have) an issue with. As long as he is willing to discuss more and revert less (unless a serious BLP issue is occurring), I don't think that there will much of an issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that was "a lot of material that nobody likes very much"? It looks like you may soon be asking for this thread to be closed? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Rihanna article, I can't judge the material that way since it was added there, presumably, by a number of editors and had been there for sometime. So it seems to me that some people care(d) about the material. Maybe even a lot of people since the subject is Rihanna. When it's substantial material, even if about a lot of tattoos, I think it is often better to discuss the removal first. See again what SNUGGUMS stated above. In some cases, some features of a celebrity have received substantial media attention and are a part of that celebrity's public image. In the Rihanna case, I would not have added that much detail about her tattoos; I would have perhaps named a few, the ones which seem most relevant, judging by sources on the topic, and included a bit of author commentary on the matter and a bit of commentary from her, if available. I take more of an analytical and WP:Preserve approach, assessing whether or not the particular aspect is significant with regard to the subject or whether it is WP:Undue. Not just for celebrity articles, but for all types of articles.

As for this thread, I obviously still think there are issues with Hillbillyholiday's editing; so I don't regret starting this thread. And I do think there will be problems with Hillbillyholiday's big deletions in the future. So I won't request that the thread be closed. Be patient. It will either be closed or be archived without being closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you make some very cogent, reasonable and valid points there. I'm not sure Rihanna's tattoos are worth preserving in an encyclopedia but, hey, what do I know. I guess there's a place for most things. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Endless disruptive edits, and total refusal to discuss their edits

Appah Rao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been discussed here before, in a report that by most here was seen as "just" a content dispute, but this is not about content disputes, but about a total refusal to collaborate with other editors, discuss their edits on the talk pages of the articles edited, and get consensus for their edits. Appah Rao obviously dislikes the use of "decisive" in the short summary in the infobox of articles about historical battles and wars, all over the world, and just removes it, without ever discussing the change (I looked at their contributions but didn't find a single attempt to discuss their edits on an article talk page...), and edit-warring over it against anyone reverting them (see their contributions, all of their many edits, many of which are reverts, removing exactly nine bytes removed "decisive", as did quite a few of their other edits..). And not even discussing it afterwards, when being contacted on their talk page (their talk page history is full of attempts by other editors, me included, to make them understand how things work here, posts that are quickly removed by them...). And they've been doing it since their first day here: their second edit removed "decisive" from the outcome of the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which very much was a decisive American victory, and my previous contact with them was about their repeated removal of "decisive" from the outcome of the Ottoman–Safavid War (1623–39), which also was a truly decisive victory since it ended a long period of almost continuous wars, and brought 150 years of peace to the region. A discussion where they made false claims about what had happened, and when confronted by me over it, just deleted my comments, but let their own lame-ass excuse stay on their talk page. Their contributions, with ~180 edits on articles, most of them removing "decisive", and only seven on article talk pages, some of those being undiscussed moves of articles about French regions, that were promptly reverted by other editors for being moved to totally wrong names, clearly shows that they're not here to collaborate, only to push their own agenda. So the sum total of their activities here is that they're just a big time-sink for other editors, here only to "right great wrongs" (why else would anyone systematically remove "decisive" from the infobox of every article about a war or battle they see?), and not to collaborate with others, and build an encyclopaedia.... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: To clarify what the original poster is saying, this is a common problem faced by WP:MILHIST: Arbitrary removal of "decisive" from the term decisive victory simply because of personal taste, when the historical outcome has been clearly established by reliable sources. It is a content dispute only when it is being done with one subject/area of interest, but it is certainly not a content dispute when it is being done indiscriminately across wide different areas of interest without the regard to the context itself. The issue is currently being discussed with the editor. Alex Shih^Talk 01:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to give a free pass, were it just a matter of the pattern. As you say, it does suggest someone who is making changes on the basis of some highly idiosyncratic semantic standard, without due consideration for what the sources say on the matter. But even so, were they discussing/dropping the matter in any instance where they were reverted, I would probably be inclined to call it a good faith (if perhaps less than ideal) approach. But it's the edit warring that elevates this to outright disruption and that's the behaviour which I think most pressingly needs to be addressed. Well, that and (if I am reading the above correctly) removing other user's comments from talk pages in violation of WP:TPG.

All that said, from the discussion on their talk page, it doesn't look like the user is completely entrenched and unwilling to adapt their approach; from discussion there, it looks like they are content to add citation needed tags. That strategy itself might still lead them into some conflict (especially if they try to mass-paste it across the same span of articles they've simply been removing the term from up until now), but I think it still offers some cause for optimism, because it demonstrates that Rao is doing this from the perspective of an editor, with a rough policy argument in mind, not just some compulsive need to remove the word because it doesn't equate with their perspective. Hopefully the user transitions that to a more engaged and discussion-oriented approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've also noticed some editors who feel that such adjectives are POV in historical articles. I think it is much too cramped an approach.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Kazakh tennis

Laura Shalabayeva and Anastasiya Zakharova have been created and then deleted as non-notable about three times now. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JulianLeeberher09/Archive. They have now been recreated again by TwoLittleCat2 (talk · contribs). I am assuming that this is another sock. Is there another way to prevent this from continuing? Note from the previous investigation that the user is using minor changes in spelling of the names to create these articles. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Saw Shalabayeva when patrolling CSD. I've salted. StarM 03:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Some admin action required for Zapad 2017 exercise

User talk:Vladimir serg has been continuously reverting the artcile to outdated and totally inadequate version, without any explanations, or discussion. The account is solely used for reverts of this artcile.Axxxion (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yo Axxxion, it's a clear content dispute at the moment, and they generally don't get covered here. But since that editor soes seem to have been engaging in a slow-burning edit-war, you might like to file a report at WP:WPANEW. About which behaviour, incidently, they have now been advised upon. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Thanks for your intervention. But I disagree with your interpretation of the situation with this article: there is no actual dispute here: very easy to see that if you will take a closer look at what has been happening there for the past several weeks. For there is no real editor behind the account User:Vladimir serg, which is in reality a single-purpose account used exclusively for mechanical reverts of just this particular article to the text, which in turn is a machine-translated Ru WP version of the corresponding article from late June, whereas the article needs regular update, as it is about an event that is to happen. These reverts are in effect disruptive activity, pure and simple. The article needs semi-protection status, which is also called-for due to the fact that the topic is potentially politically loaded and controversial.Axxxion (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Besides, there is an obvious Wikipedia:Civility issue with this account′s last (and only) posting: [130]. All attempts to engage the person behind this account in any discussion have been futile. Most likely he has no English-language competence, in the first place.Axxxion (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Voltron: Legendary Defender unregistered user problem

Hi there! This unregistered user 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 keeps adding non-essential details to the article's episode summaries. I have explained why i reverted the edit, but it does not seem to take and the user has resorted to name calling. I'm unsure how to progress.--Refuteku (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You, of course, are presenting only your side of events. You labeled my editing "vandalism" BEFORE I applied any epithets, which is in fact what led me to it. And the evaluation of my edits as "non-essential details" is purely your subjective opinion. I also provided corrections to passages poorly constructed by even an objective measure. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I should indeed have used the term "disruptive editing", that is correct. Now about the episode summaries. The character Pidge's gender had no relevance to the plot as none of the characters performed any plot related actions due to this revelation. And most of your grammar corrections were unsuited for an encyclopedic article.--Refuteku (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No, "disruptive editing" is NOT correct. And your assessments are still your subjective opinions, despite your attempt to claim otherwise. For example, "continually" was the correct word to use, rather than "continuously"; but you first dismissed my entire edit within 3 minutes, clearly without careful consideration. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it's correct, since you have refused to discuss your edits in a civilized manner. Continually and continuously can both be used, if that's what you are hung up about. It's better to revert a large edit entirely, and then add the proper stuff from it afterwards which is now have done. This is preferably done by the first user, but as you started of by being aggressive i figured you were not interested in that.--Refuteku (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not "refused" anything! You never offered the opportunity; you only reverted "vandalism". You are DEAD WRONG about "continuously/continually", not that, as you well know, that is really the only issue. Your summary reversions put lie to any notion that I am a sole, or even initial, aggressor here, "not interested" in discussion -- which raises another issue: your continual distortion of the situation. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• One of the more entertaining page histories I've seen in a while [131]. And continually is decidedly the right word. EEng 17:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Continually it is then :)--Refuteku (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If only there were some way these disparate editors could combine their efforts to form, say, a giant robot with a blazing sword. But I digress. Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

lol, well, the effort needs to come from both users.--Refuteku (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A plague on all their houses, but especially Refuteku's. Most episode summaries, especially of animated series, are pretty much "non-essential details" themselves, and srguing about individual summaries is so plainly content dispute that it's hard to see Refuteku's accusations of vandalism against an apparently new editor as the actions of a reasonable, good faith editor -- especially without the slightest effort to use the article talk page. Violating WP:BITE does more damage to Wikipedia than adding a few words more than a guideline calls for does, by any rational measure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I see, well i do apologize for using the word "vandalism". I was slightly annoyed by the all caps "Leave it alone" revert the user did. I think it was after the second revert that the user wrote on my talk page and i tried to make it clear why i reverted the users additions. Albeit i did not explain it from all angles in my response. And i probably should have told the user to stop editing until we reached a conclusion.--Refuteku (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's what this all boils down to: As Wolfowitz points out, there are no hard and fast guidelines about what is vital or appropriate content for a plot summary (it would be impossible for the community to construct a one-size-fits-all standard for a vast array of narrative works) so it is up to involved editors to discuss these details and form a consensus or reasonable compromise solution. You have instead decided to immediately engage in an WP:Edit war over the matter and then, when this didn't work, flown here in the hope that we would impose your idiosyncratic interpretation of the plot of a cartoon most here will not have seen. You've missed about twenty dispute resolution steps inbetween this most trivial of content disputes and filing a complaint at ANI. You made no effort to so much as begin discussion this on the talk page, let alone avail yourself of a WP:Third opinion or other community process for breaking the deadlock, if it came to that (though, frankly, if you two are incapable of coming to a compromise on this matter, Wikipedia as a process is not going to get any easier for you). The IP can be forgiven (briefly, if the behaviour does not persist) for engaging in the initial edit war, but you have been here for more than 11 years it seems, and even with very intermittent activity, you ought to know that edit warring is not permissible.

This is clearly a content dispute. Were it my call, I'd be half attempted to hand you a 24-hour WP:BOOMERANG block for edit warring, violating WP:3RR first and then coming here to complain about an IP you are clearly displaying WP:BITE towards, who has violated no policy with their additions and has only become disruptive insofar as they emulated your edit warring behaviour--then send you both back to work more constructively on the content issue, pulling in outside perspectives if you really can't agree on whether it's worth mentioning what "Princess Allura's mice" are up to. Instead iw ill simply urge you to undertake that effort at discussion now, before you end up earning yourself such a sanction.

Also, though I don't want to give you the impression that this is the correct space to debate content matters, I think you should expect (if you can't compromise and need to bring in other opinions--which would be a further waste of editorial time, but i suspect that is where this is headed) that you will probably not get your way on some of those edits; the revelation that a major character has a secret identity of an alternative gender seems like the kind of detail that warrants half a sentence's worth of mention, whatever story it takes place--and in this particular case, a quick Google search suggests that this twist reveal has actually become a bit intertwined with the show's WP:NOTABILITY: [132], [133], [134]. Again, please reserve your commentary on that issue for your forthcoming (and I'm sure very grounded and reasonable and within scale and perspective) arguments on the talk page, and don't delve into it here; I'm simply trying to point out that I think you're going to need to be flexible here. Regardless, discuss what is best for the article and stop trying to impose your preferred version as mandate. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru and Judeo-Christian related articles

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

User has recently started making these kinds of posts in Judeo-Christian related articles and talk pages:

• "Adultery and forced sex with Bathsheba" and "David is a rapist" where he is caught cherry picking to push a rape interpretation when (as was quickly demonstrated by other users, sometimes with the very sources QuackGuru cited to begin with) scholars are quite divided on the issue.
• Citing a vanity-press published work to argue against the notion of a creator deity (not simply young earth creationism, but something that, by definition, is outside the boundaries of science)
• Citing a 1829 work for the "scientific view" (which he soon started treating as only the view held only by non-religious persons) regarding a metaphysical belief.
• "God is a Rapist?" - where he engages in misrepresentative WP:SYNTH to push the idea that Jesus was the product of rape. This wasn't a good-faith suggestion of incorporating material about Pan(d/t)era into a relevant part of the article, this was trying to portray followers of Abrahamic religions as rape-worshipers.
• Arguing that the Jesus article (which explains what atheists think of Jesus and does not claim that anyone outside of Christianity believes Jesus is divine to begin with) doesn't explain the non-religious view, which he tried to resolve by replacing the content on atheism with undue weight on New Atheism.
• Responding to a warning to quit disrupting an article with "I will continue"

Please see Talk:Jesus for more.

Between the WP:ADVOCACY to portray the followers of the Abrahamic religions as rape-worshippers, the WP:UNDUE emphasis on New Atheism, and the continual disregard for WP:RS he's showing, a mixture of WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, and/or WP:TEND (I know not in what proportions) apply here. Regardless of whichever worldview one is being a sectarian for, regardless of whichever group of people is being vilely misrepresented, we don't allow that kind of sectarianism to get near our articles.

This behavior is very recent but given this user's prior history for similar behavior on other topics, maybe he could use an earlier heads up to change course. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru's recent history includes extended tendentious discussion at WT:V. Details in my comment below. See also his extensive block log. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• The content I recently added to Bathsheba is still in the article per talk page consensus. And another editor added the same content I added to Bathsheba to the David article.

• I discussed what was the issue with the Xulon Press source after the content was removed.

• I did discuss the controversial issues at the Jesus talk page after I read many sources. I was not trying to portray followers of Abrahamic religions as rape-worshipers. That's absurd. There are things that are not clearly explained in the article. The same as other pages. See Talk:Bathsheba#David is a rapist.

• The article is unclear and I am discussing it on the talk page.[135]

• See Talk:Jesus#Failed_verification. The content failed verification. I provided a source to verify the claim. The source was removed with the edit summary "rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". The revert does not clearly explain why the edit was reverted. Providing a source to verify the claim is not WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue does not apply to content that failed verification. The source stated "New Atheists"[136] not atheists in general. I made a small change to the content in order for it to pass verification using the source presented.

• I was not responding to a warning. I was stating that I was continuing my editing on another page by providing a link to another article.

• Ian.thomson Stated "I'm focusing on disruptive behavior."[137] See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE: "Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages." I previously explained on the talk page to focus on content. See WP:FOC: "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, this explains QuackGuru's ill-fated attempt to rewrite WP:Administrators. I assume that this was the secret underlying dispute that QuackGuru wouldn't disclose and was trying to win when he tried to add an oddly-specific line to WP:ADMIN a few days ago: [138], Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Replacing sourced content with failed verification content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So, WP:Gaming the system? That level of deliberation makes it hard to assume good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, that attempt to insert the block-the-admin-for-a-year is one of the silliest, most ham-handed things I've ever seen an experienced editor do. EEng 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• This enough leads me to question QG's intentions. Gaming and POV-pushing are absolutely clear. I recommend the editor to back off this topic area completely for a while until they lose this malicious momentum. It isn't too late to apologize and move on. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I spotted the failed verification content just today. This edit was made on 19:32, 16 August 2017. It is completed unrelated to this revert made on 15:44, 20 August 2017. This edit was made on 15:40, 20 August 2017. Check the dates. This is a new dispute. I added a source to verify the content and made a small tweak to the content. The content still fails verification. See Talk:Jesus#Failed_verification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • There's no way to tell if there's a real connection and I'm not going to agree or disagree with you. But since you made that edit to WP:ADMIN, and then proceeded to carry out controversial actions along the same lines, the first and clearest assumption is some hidden POV pushing agenda. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• I've had my own run-ins with QuackGuru, and I would heartily welcome his absence from any of the articles I edit. But I think this is rather more complicated than POV-pushing against Christians and I would advise against closing this thread early or imposing a simplistic solution.

  QG's basic modus operandi is to defend the scientific viewpoint against the unscientific one by paying close attention to the scientific sources, and when he does it in articles about medical content this is viewed as a net positive by the community, because it tends to exclude people who want to push homeopathy or acupuncture from being able to edit in medical topic areas. That's the main reason why an editor with his rather extensive block log is still unbanned: he is source-focused and he prefers the scientific sources to the in-bubble ones. Taking that approach into articles about Abrahamic religions strikes me as a little unwise, but it's consistent with all of QG's well-established behaviours.

  I actually think that what we need here is a way to distinguish Quackguru's valuable and useful behaviours from the unproductive ones that make him really really annoying to deal with. The thing he does with "failed verification" tags is a longstanding behaviour, and I think that underneath it all he doesn't get the fundamental concept of verifiability. He's got a history of using {{fv}} tags on individual words. I think he doesn't see that verifiability is on the level of facts, theories and concepts rather than words and phrases; and won't listen to that if you tell him because he assumes you are the one pushing the unscientific POV. I also think he doesn't get the fundamental concept of source reliability, because he acts as if the most skeptical source is always the most reliable one. But what he isn't doing is intentionally pushing a POV. That's not him. These behaviours are motivated by a genuine wish to improve the encyclopaedia ---- combined with an unfortunate tendency to inappropriately personalise content disputes by classifying editors as "scientific" or "unscientific" and treating the "unscientific" ones as hostile.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Please see Talk:Jesus#Failed verification. Adding a source to verify a claim should not be a problem. The problem is when the source is removed and the content still fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• You see, Quack, this is exactly the kind of thing I mean. Someone wrote "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity", and you tagged it with {{fv}}. And you don't understand why that calls your editorial judgment into question.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• After reading the source it did not verify the content. And then I added a source to verify the content and made a small tweak to accurately reflect the source. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed." Rather than leave a tag I added a source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall, you confirm my impression of what I've seen of his presence on other parts of the site, which is why I haven't suggested blocking. Hopefully, a notice from the community that he should focus on other topics would be enough. Otherwise a restriction like (as you mention below) a topic ban might be necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• He won't do what you tell him to do. You're going to need something logged and enforced. Expect him to conform to the letter of the restriction while trying to circumvent of the spirit of it, so if we do go down the topic ban route, we'll need to define the scope of the ban very carefully. It may be better to identify specific problem behaviours, rather than a range of articles, for him to avoid (or a combination of some behaviours and some specific articles). Awilley has extensive experience of this user and what he says is worth reading closely.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• If QuackGuru doesn't appreciate the problematic nature of some of his contributions, a block is certainly called for. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, do not block Quack. At most the remedy should be a topic ban from articles about religion. On medicine, we need him.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Seconded re not blocking for now. Were this a user who had not demonstrated any usefulness elsewhere, I'd probably be filing this just to confirm that it was OK for me to have already pulled the trigger on a WP:CIR/Trolling block, but QG has shown some usefulness on particular topics. I can't say that a topic ban from all religion articles is necessary yet. Broadly construed, that would overlap with quackery related articles since some quacks love to use religion as a shield. So far, there's only been issues with stances on Biblical matters but there is the question of whether or not the behavior will spread to other religion articles. "Bible-related articles" would end up covering some pages that don't necessarily concern religion (e.g. Philistines). "Bible-related religion articles" still has occasional overlap with quackery if broadly construed as possible, though an amendment "except where modern medical practice is concerned" would fix that in any case. Though this is only if a topic ban proves necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like he will move on to other articles about other religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to resolve this dispute regarding the content. See "Ian.thomson, do you have a suggestion on how to resolve this dispute since the current content fails verification?"[139] I think it can be quickly resolved by adding one source to verify the content since the source at the end of the sentence does not verify this part. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban from religious articles. QuackGuru's single-minded approach and tenacity combined with numerous competence issues make them a pain to work with in any capacity. They are amazingly tendentious and daring to disagree with them results in so much WP:SOUP that it's usually easier to just edit elsewhere. That said, I think an outright block/ban would go too far, as QG's knowledge of medicine-related sources is valuable to the encyclopedia. I appreciate their efforts to expose quackery and defend science, and I applaud people who look at religious belief with a critical scientific eye. But QuackGuru's hamfisted approach is not going to improve articles about religious belief, and the degree of their misdirection can be seen by their bizarre proposal to add the following sentence to the Lede section of our Jesus article: "According to science, Jesus is not God's son." Thank you, science, for clearing that up. ~Awilley (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I made a proposal but did not add it to the article. @Jytdog: explained on the talk page your POV reversions to the David article. I partially reverted your changes. Because there is disagreement does not mean an editor should try to topic ban another editor. My edits did improve articles about religious belief. If an editor reverted my edit I did discuss it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment But surely we can hardly allow QG's "hamfisted approach" in areas where it suits us but ban it in others? Surely what we must do is hold them to the same editing standards as everyone else, and if that is impossible, dispense with their services? This is what we generally do. --John (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @John, it is my view that QG is a net-positive on medicine-related articles despite being annoying and sometimes disruptive, and a net-negative on religion-related articles. ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have been watching QG's entrance into this topic with some.... well watchfulness. QG often gets involved in articles where there is some long-term POV pushing that is harming the neutrality of our content, and generally QG has been on the side of the angels, which is why the community has continued to tolerate their somewhat "beserker" tactics. In the case of the David/Bathsheba stuff, it is absolutely true that QG eventually arrived at very well-sourced and excellently neutral content dealing with the very terse biblical text about David and Bathsheba, which had consensus from everyone at the talk page. I don't think there is need for any action here. The OP said that the purpose of their post was to warn QG not to take the tactics too far, and I believe that has been accomplished. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Basically all of QuacksGuru's comments at Talk:Jesus have been designed to bait or troll other editors ... comments such as "God is a rapist" and "Jesus is the bastard son of a rapist". Because of that particular comment I warned him for inappropriate talkpage usage two days ago. He keeps posting provocative / controversial stuff to the talkpage that he knows will never get added to the article, but tries to disguise his trolling by adding stuff like "thoughts?" or "hmm, do you guys think this should be included?" ... he's just gaming the system to avoid getting an autoban. I think as a troll that has no intention of improving the article he should be blocked from commenting there. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are the two sources.[140][141] I understand you think the sources are not useful for that article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try addressing the concerns of the people in this thread instead of doubling down on the baiting and insincerity. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• QG is an overall positive to the project. They closely follows sources which is generally a good thing. Agree with the concerns around them adding FV tags as sometimes it is appropriate to paraphrase more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on religion, broadly construed. The observable gaming, baiting, clearly disruptive editing, POV-pushing, and the single-minded behavioral problems all add up to the need for a specific sanction here that will hopefully still leave QG free to edit medical and scientific articles. As others have noticed, he won't do what someone tells him to do, so a specific logged and enforceable sanction is needed. QG is a problem editor and has been blocked over a dozen times, but he has not yet reached net negative and still has use in some areas of Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Ian Thomsons's suggested topic ban ("QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply.") BTW, shouldn't that be "religion articles" instead of "religious articles"? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from Religion broadly construed. Unlike Guy above, this is not an 'unwilling' issue, its an 'unable'. Sorry, anyone who has dealt with QG for more than 5 minutes knows two things 1)QG is always right, 2)QG will never change his position once taken. The argument may change, if you present evidence he will just fall back to another reason why he is right. Anything short of a broadly construed ban across the entire topic will result in wikilawyering and attempts to game the system so he is in the right - as the change to the policy RE admins amply shows. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban from religion articles per above. Agathoclea (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban from Religion broadly construed according to the wording suggested by Ian Thomson,since it is felt the editor is useful in other areas, for reasons given above by others. Yesterday Jytdog said "The OP said that the purpose of their post was to warn QG not to take the tactics too far, and I believe that has been accomplished" but this is not the case as QuackGuru is still fighting to put a "Failed Verification" tag on the statement "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity" [142]. So silly, juvenile, a waste of everybody's time and needs to stop and stop now.Smeat75 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not fighting over it. I simply added a tag because the content failed verification. I discussed it on the talk page. I requested a source for the content that failed verification. See "Per policy that content still fails verification. I recommend a source for the content. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." That's what I have done."[143] Your edit summary was "Undid revision 796515523 by QuackGuru (talk)rv silliness"[144] There should be no problem with spotting FV content and recommending a source for the content. Following policy is not a waste of time. Do you understand the content FV? Banning an editor for spotting content that fails verification is not helpful to improving the article. Adding a tag is not taking tactics too far. QuackGuru (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban from religion articles based on users inability to comprehend or addresses the concerns raised by others.--Moxy (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• support topic ban from all religion topics, broadly construed. The inability to understand and listen to others is a major problem. The extreme rigidity may be an asset elsewhere, but it is not helpful in this case and QGs inability to see other arguments is on full display here. If the people editing in the medical area can put up with this IDHT behavior, more power to them. Other good faith editors shouldn't be forced to. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if I support this proposal or not, but I will say that it has been my experience that QC's ability to determine whether content is supported by sources is highly suspect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ian Thomsons's suggested topic ban - Specifically that; "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply". Whoever said we need a scalpel and not a sledge hammer is right. Also nice analogy. They can always ask for the ban to removed after a period of time.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on religion articles, broadly construed. QG has essentially ignored the negative feedback in this thread. Simply telling him that his editing is problematic has obviously not been effective, so we need to take tougher action. I understand and appreciate the arguments against the "broadly construed" part, but doesn't it send a mixed message to QG to tell him that his editing approach is okay with medicine articles but not ok with religion articles? Tendentious wikilawyering is a problem and it's a slippery slope if we only chose to address it in certain areas. Lepricavark (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Broadly construed"

• No. "Broadly construed" is a mistake, and is insufficiently thought through. As Ian Thomson has rightly said above, there are real areas of overlap between the medical articles and the religious ones, such as Faith healing. If we're going to install a topic ban then the boundaries should be more carefully drawn than "religious articles, broadly construed". There should certainly be an exemption specifically permitting QG to edit anything in Category:Supernatural healing and Category:Alternative medicine, and I would urge that the correct wording for any topic ban from religion should be "narrowly construed".—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Proposed topic ban phrasing of "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply." I specify "articles, talk pages, and topics" instead of just "pages" because we don't want him banned from WP:FTN whenever a thread about a religious topic comes up though we don't want him handling religion matters there. Specifying modern medical practice (instead of medicine broadly construed) should prevent behavior like editing the Cronus page to point out the medical impossibility of children surviving being eaten by their fathers, Aphrodite to point out the medical impossibility of being born from castration, or Athena to point out the medical impossibility of being born as a grown adult from one's father's forehead. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• honestly, I don't think QG is an asset anywhere. He may have the right POV, but his behavior is a great example of how not to appproach collaborative editing. I support the broadly construed wording, and the only reason I'm not pushing for a full site ban is that the various medical editors do not support one. But there is no need for such uncollaborative editing behavior and IDHT actions to be allowed elsewhere. His editing behaviors are not helpful and tend to waste other editions time. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I spotted content that failed verification. I requested a source to verify the content I discussed it on the talk page. There are other issues I discussed on the talk page. For example, Jesus's self-perception is not clearly explained in the article. I found a source that says "The Christian Trinity was not taught by Jesus. Nor did Jesus ever say that he was the Son of God. Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."[145] There may be better sources or other sources that explain it more clearly. QuackGuru (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Requiring a source for "atheists deny the divinity of Jesus" is unreasonable and disruptive. You are taking our policies to extremes and pissing people off in the process. When everyone is telling you that you are doing something wrong, stop arguing that you are right. Accept that you are indeed doing something wrong. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Blueboar. This particular argument is so far beyond pointless that it resembles trolling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, I tried adding a source, but it was removed. Then I thought adding a tag for others to help find a source. It appeared editors have acknowledged the content failed verification. Numerous articles have tags in them for years. Why is it disruptive here but not on other articles that have tags? I spotted content that failed verification on another article and discussed it on the talk page. Is that also disruptive? QuackGuru (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

QC, you also changed the text to specify "New atheists". As if traditional (or "old") atheists do accept Jesus' divinity? No, that's just silly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I could not find a source to verify the exact current wording. I made a small tweak in order for it to be more accurate. I am also fine with just adding another source without changing the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't need a source for the statement that Atheists reject a claim of divinity. There are no sources contradicting it, it's common knowledge and it's true by definition. Indeed, it's what makes atheists atheists. There is no source needed, and even if it did need a source, you could have gone to Atheism and taken your pick of the four citations used on the first sentence. I don't see anything defensible about this edit, or your position. It looks like nothing more than either willful disruption or a bad case of you really not getting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Before adding one of the sources at Atheism they can be read to check to ensure they support the claim "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity". The sources at Atheism support the absence of belief in the existence of deities in general. In order to use a source it should state specifically opposing Jesus' divinity. I don't want to add a source that could be perceived as failing verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

<facepalm> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason you are arguing over this? After this discussion your behaviour towards me has changed drastically. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice of you to link to an example of you making a rather ironic personal attack in your edit summary. You're doing a wonderful job of making me reconsider abstaining from supporting the topic ban. Oh, and to answer your question: Because you have -once again- taken a complete non-issue and used it as an excuse to pick an argument with another editor, then proceeded to resort to a line of argumentation that would get you kicked out of a freshman rhetoric course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot speak for ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, but for me I am torn. Part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles. Part of me wants to criticize you for your obvious trolling on various religion articles. And part of me just wishes you would dial in down a couple of notches in pretty much all of your interactions with others. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You said "Part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles." That's not what I remember you said about me before. I remember years ago you criticized me at the fringe noticeboard for cleaning up one of the alt-med articles because I did not have consensus. Many of these articles were littered with primary sources and unreliable sources. I was surprised you reverted back to an old version. It was in 2013‎. I'm not going to bother digging up the diffs. That was a while ago. I noticed editors who have disagreed with me in the past are showing up here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm showing up here for no other reason than to say (1) delivery matters, (2) sometimes things aren't always what they seem, and (3) the little reed, bending to the force of the wind, soon stood upright again when the storm had passed over. ~Aesop ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Per Ealdgyth. Its religion on all pages or nothing for me. If there is an intersection at a specific article of religion and medical, the topic ban on religion should prevent editing in that area. No loopholes. The above couple of comments should suggest why leaving exceptions is a bad idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree: No loopholes. We need to not create a loophole for bad faith editors who are predictably going to go "You can't revert me because %_alternative_therapy_% is part of my religion!" The reason this whole problem is so complicated ---- the reason Quack wasn't site-banned years ago ---- is because he does genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks. (His account is really well-named.) Articles on medical topics are watched by relatively few editors and are under constant siege from people who want to push their favourite brand of snake oil. Quack's skepticism and genuine knowledge in that topic area are valuable and if we're going to hamstring him in this way then there really isn't a reason to keep him around. But we'd need to take two or three good editors off their other work to keep an eye on Quack's watchlist.

  The Wikipedian tendency to attach "broadly construed" to topic bans is to be avoided in this case. It's a problem that needs a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• "if we're going to hamstring him in this way then there really isn't a reason to keep him around" - you may find people would actually rather take that option. "he does genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks" - to be accurate what he does is act badly towards everybody, but the way he acts badly has a positive outcome when directed at quacks. If I shoot 1000 people, it doesn't make it right just because some of them were criminals. I cant see a benefit in putting a topic ban on him if its not going to be as wide as possible given his wikilawyering and tendentious editing. The only other restriction I would support is a blanket 1rr *everywhere*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've got to concede that that's a reasonable position, and that Quack's edits immediately above are really undermining my attempts to keep this contained.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• There is a lot of stories I could tell. I will pick one that pissed off some editors. There were too many citations for one sentence at Vani Hari. Four citations was overboard. Only in death does duty end disagreed. I eventually fixed it by removing the citations that failed verification and replacing them with citations that passed verification. I did not get reverted after I fixed the problems. S Marshall, you mentioned I genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks. That's only part of the story. There are problematic skeptics adding misleading content. I keep editors on both sides honest. I know that gets some editors pissed off at me because I followed policy and focused heavily on the content. I read the sources and ensured the content was neutral and sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• hey, TBAN train. Above I noted that QG gets involved where there is entrenched POV pushing.

Please take a breath.

There is a legitimate point of view that QG is representing in some places here - a feminist one , which holds that images and metaphors about sexuality and gender, specifically around Mary but more broadly many others derived from the Bible, have contributed fundamentally to rape culture in Western civilization. Some of these things are not just minor references in passing texts but core notions in some Christianities.

Looked at with irreligious eyes, Jesus is a bastard and God can be described as a rapist with respect to Mary, and the Bible describes God using rapist language elsewhere. Above QG here cited Susanne Scholz (a feminist biblical scholar and professor at Southern Methodist; she doesn't have an article here but is cited in our article Rape in the Hebrew Bible) and QG cited here Jane Schaberg who is in turn citing Julia Kristeva who describes the Virgin Mary as "one of the most powerful imaginary constructs known in history of civilization". (getting into a bit of TMI here, I found myself in Catholic churches at statues of the pieta after 9/11.... Mary is a powerful construct)

The story of David and Bathsheba can be read as fitting into countless examples of powerful men taking the bodies of women. "Grab 'em by their pussies" much, anyone?

The statement, "Atheists reject the divinity of Jesus" is somewhat of a begging-the-question formulation. Kind of like saying "Sarah Palin rejects death panels." or perhaps "Jytdog rejects the claim that pink unicorns like to eat marigolds". One reads anyone of those three and says "Well yes but that is kind of a strange thing to say...."

These are somewhat sacred cows I know.

I have worked through the years on some content related to the Bible and other religious topics. There are large swaths of WP that have been captured by True Believers; and places that are expressions of faith in WP's voice rather than being encyclopedic content. (that last sentence is an example parallelism, a hallmark of poetry in the Hebrew Bible btw)

I wouldn't raise these issues the way that QG is, but ~some~ of the !votes here appear to me, to be more knee jerk reactions written in a lack of awareness of these very legitimate lines of critique, or just not seeing them, than they are about what QG is writing per se.

So let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream, but breathe, ya'all. RIghteousness is not a simple thing sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• As Jytdog points out above, this is in some respects not as straight-forward as it superficially appears to be. I agree with those who see QuackGuru as a net positive to the encyclopedia, but it appears to me that precisely those qualities which makes QG valuable in medical articles makes them problematic when they are applied to a much more complex social and historical phenomenon such as religion -- and I say this as a longtime atheist (lapsed Catholic) myself. Religion can be dealt with in the same fashion that QG deals with medicine, but really only in POV writings such as those of Richard Dawkins. I may or may not agree with Dawkins' take on religion, or I may or may not hew somewhat closer to Stephen Jay Gould's view of "non-overlapping magisteria", but wherever I stand it's a personal viewpoint which is essentially not provable in the same way that scientific facts are, or can be, proved (by the scientific definition). It is for this reason that QG's entry into articles about religion is problematic, as he attempts to apply the same ultra-strict standard to a subject which is not amenable to that, and has no defining authority similar to WP:MEDRS. (Note that WP:Religion is a failed proposal.)
  The upshot of all this is that I support Ian.thomsons's suggested topic ban, which reads "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply." I think this strikes a good balance, allows QG to apply his strengths where they will be helpful to the project, but keeps QG away from articles which -- quite apparently -- they don't know how to deal with appropriately. QG is essentially a one-trick pony, but that trick is a powerfully good one when applied appropriately, and the encyclopedia benefits enormously when they do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, I did want to mention that while Jytdog makes a valid point about religionists in many cases forcing religion articles to be (essentially) the equivalent of "in universe" articles, freezing out non-believer views which would make those article more rounded and less skewed toward the religious viewpoint, I'm very certain that QG's approach to editing those articles is the worst possible way to go about changing that. Someone who wishes to make religion articles less, well, religious, needs to take a softer approach, and be a good listener, a good rhetorician, and a person able to strike compromises between a hard-core believer position and a hard-core non-believer one. Those articles need to be opened up incrementally and with great tact and respect. QG is not that person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken thanks for engaging with what I wrote. I have imagined this thread being on Chinese WP, with all the references to "religion" changed to "acupuncture." I would expect it to be pretty much exactly the same, with accusations of "trolling" etc. The capturing of large swaths of WP by a Christian POV just is what it is, as is the Christianish perspective of many editors. From an abstract perspective QG should not have to be any more delicate with their fence-rattling in challenging Christian bias nor in raising a feminist perspective on Christian subjects, than they should have to be on alt med things. But part of WP:CLUE is "knowing what works" and what you wrote about approaching it more delicately is just the way things are here in en-WP. This is very third-rail-y. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a rather distinct difference between interpretation of religious belief and medical science. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson this is true -- very true -- but it is also true that it just as possible for page to be "captured" by advocates for a Christian POV as it is for a page to be captured by advocates for alt-med, and there is no difference in the kind of violation of NPOV that both represent. Circling back to the difference.. the means of resolving the problem are much different especially as the relevant literature is so different, and that is where strategies/tactics that BMK discussed above, and that I think you are concerned about as well, come into play. I am not unsympathetic to your opening this thread. It just not a black and white thing to me. But I should have noted the difference in subject matter and sources and how that changes the negotiation more clearly. You called that out well. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

To show you what I mean about capture, not that long ago the lead of David looked like this. That is horrible and getting that fixed was way more of a struggle than it should have been. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The means to fix such a POV in an article on more subjective topics is to present a variety of interpretations with due weight. If it is necessary to overhaul the article, outline it from professional academic tertiary sources that give an overview of the more noteworthy interpretations. The way to not do it is highlighting just the bits with the most shock value from cherry-picked sources (many of them completely unreliable beyond WP:PRIMARY quotes) that sometimes only tangentially connect to some undeniably uncommon interpretations and presenting those interpretations as scientific facts. That difference, QG's apparent inability and unwillingness to acknowledge that difference, plus the continued "can do no wrong" attitude QG displays (which is simply incompatible with the sort of cooperation needed in editing articles on subjective topics), are why people are supporting a topic ban.

If you have evidence that the Christianity article is horrendously skewed by a POV that needs to be fixed, by all means present (on the talk page) some tertiary sources to demonstrate what perspectives are not given due weight. I even grant that it could use more material covering feminist perspectives, as I am familiar that there's plenty of sources feminist theology and feminist interpretations of theology out there and I think it'd be great to see them given due weight in the article -- but I know that there's a hell of a lot more to it than trying to empirically claim "God is a rapist" like some MRA parody of "feminazis."

I don't see it as black and white either. The gray is a mixture of "he may not have the mindset needed to properly collaborate on subjective topics" and "he is useful on empirical topics," and "some of our articles deal with subjective matter" and "some of our articles deal with empirical matter." Beyond that, the former or current state of articles doesn't really matter because this is a behavioral matter and not a content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See here. Jesus' self-perception is not mentioned in the article. If historians are unclear or disagree that can be included in the article. Rather than just focus on improving the article you accuse me of disruption. I focused on the article.[146][147] It is a behavior problem to comment on the editor on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That you assume that a historical figure's self-perception is so easily grasped shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how history works. Unless we have something written by a historical figure, we don't truly know what they thought of themselves, only how other historians interpret that figure. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say or think that Jesus' self-perception is so easily grasped. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I explained if historians interpretation of Jesus' self-perception are unclear or disagree then that could be included. You appear to be against including any historians interpretation of Jesus' self-perception. Sources I have read say similar things like: "The Christian Trinity was not taught by Jesus. Nor did Jesus ever say that he was the Son of God. Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."[148] We can work together and find better sources and clarify this point in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Unless I am greatly mistaken, there are no "historical interpretations of Jesus' self-perception", since the only writings we have about Jesus came from people who never knew him, and were working with received mythology passed down orally through time, larded with a great deal of total invention and fabrication by the writers who wished to present a particular view of the man. So what we have are interpretations of someone's perception of what Jesus' self-perception may possibly have been if he did the things people who never knew him write that he did. That's fine if you're discussing the mythical Jesus and not the historical Jesus.

A great deal of time and energy has gone into trying to distill some small grains of fact from the Gospels, and there has been considerable improvement in our knowledge of the historical man, but we are nowhere near the point where anyone can say with finality that the historical Jesus absolutely did X or absolutely did not do Y. Herein lies your problem: history is not science, biography is not science, religion is not science, so attempting to deal with the putative biography of a quasi-mythical quasi-historical religious figure as if it were amenable to the same techniques that one uses in science is simply absurd, as there are no answers, only more or less convincing arguments -- and what is "convincing" is different from person to person. Your attempt to deal with this subject matter as if it is -- to pick up on a trope in this discussion -- either black-or-white is fundamentally flawed and unworkable in this context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, a historical figure's self-perception is only known if they wrote something down about themselves. That's something that one has to understand to get beyond any introductory studies in the humanities. Asking for historians' interpretation of his self-perception is asking for their interpretation of something they don't have. This is not something you approach as you would an empirical matter, which seems to be the only way you know how to approach things.

You started off approaching this using sources that largely rejected WP:RS to push the ideas with the most shock value, after trying to rewriting policies to suit your needs. It would be obvious to someone the least bit capable of contemplating how others might see things why people might think you're trolling or at least POV-pushing. That you keep citing that source from AuthorHouse despite having already been told that it's not reliable only further calls your competency with this topic into question. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say to use AuthorHouse in the article after I was told it was unreliable. I was using it as an example in this thread. I was explaining what sources I have read said. I said above "We can work together and find better sources and clarify this point in the article." That means I want to find better sources. See "If there is no academic consensus on the matter then we can include different interpretations or views regarding Jesus' self-perception."[149] Historians have commented on Jesus' self-perception. I gave one example to show it is possible to find historians commenting on Jesus' self-perception. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Quack -- you're in a hole. Stop digging. Please.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We've been in many disputes before. I thought you were going to comment here eventually. Are you trying to make me look bad? QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

QG: At the risk of stating the obvious, the only one here who is making you look bad is you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And that is perhaps the real problem here... Quack is a tenacious "Wiki-lawyer", especially when he feels he is right... to the point where his tanacity becomes disruptive. He needs to learn to stop digging when consensus is against him. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been in many disputes with you too. This was a new dispute regarding Jesus' self-perception. I'm sure I or others can find better sources. Is it a problem to using better sources for Jesus' self-perception for the article? QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Read this whole thread carefully and think about how people besides you see things. Imagine that it is about someone else covering a topic you're willing to admit you know nothing about. This is not about article content, this is about your behavior. Notice that the closest anyone is coming to defending you (a minority that somehow includes me) is pointing out that you have good intentions, that you're helpful in other areas, and there are problems in the articles -- no one is agreeing with your tactics. Almost everyone has stated that your behavior is problematic and more users than I'd like to see are ready to have you topic banned from all religion articles.

If all the traffic is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. From an outside perspective, you are in the wrong here. Whenever I see a user without your history cause this sort of uproar on ANI, that user always got at least a topic ban, if not an indefinite block or even a community ban. That some users (including myself) have pointed out that you're useful in medical articles is not an excuse to keep fighting, it is your chance to back down before an uninvolved admin decides you're just not worth the trouble. That S Marshall and I have argued that any topic ban should exclude medical topics would demonstrate to anyone with an iota of awareness that we are actually trying to balance helping the site with helping you as a member of the community.

If you are not willing to (or worse, cannot) consider what any other member of the community has to say except when it's backing you up, you do not belong on a collaborative project. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with BTMK and S Marshall. Ian.Thomson's suggested wording is far better. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• "BTK"? I've seen "BYK" before, which I've always assumed meant "Beyond Your Ken", but "BTK is a new one on me. "Beyond Their Ken"?, "Beyond Thy Ken"? "Benighted Tacky Ken"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Er ... oops. Black Kite (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support religion topic ban. Just his continued hammering and failure to listen in this thread is enough evidence for that. Elsewhere I recall his behavior fitting the patterns he is showing here. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• support tban as framed by ian. QG is not going to demonstrate the necessary CLUE here. QG you have done buried yourself here. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This is, again, one of these ridiculously over-complicated TB proposals. TBs are about a subject and edits related to that subject. Not pages. When did this whole pages TB become a norm? Normally with a TB you could edit a page that had some content related to a TB so long as your edits didn't broach the subject of your TB. There's worries that broadly construed could, say, stop QG from commenting on FTN because there's likely to be some religion related content on the page. Just simplify this: QG is topic banned from all edits relating to religion broadly construed. Which I'd Support. Capeo (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support either religion topic ban or Ian's wording. I don't know much about the user's history to able to tell if he can edit articles involving both medicine and religion without intentionally causing trouble or controversy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Just going by the behaviour on ANI alone, I support the broadly construed topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• QuackGuru has an extensive history of IDHT, of waving his hands around about this or that problem (such as allegations of OR and non-verifiability), of demanding sources from others for even the plainest statements, but disdaining to support his claims or point to specific cases, of being deaf to what he doesn't want to hear.

E.g., his attempt to unilaterally change the WP:ADMIN policy (see WT:Administrators #Replacing sourced content with failed verification content for other endeavors) can be traced back to some recent discussions at WT:V (see WT:V#Re-start and WT:V#Problem with wording), which in turn appear to have been his attempt to get some leverage in a content dispute at Chiropractic (see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_38#Too_many_problems_with_recent_changes_to_lede) for a sample.

In all these cases QuackGuru is often in the situation (such as noted above by Blueboard [15:42: 21 Aug]) where everyone present is telling him something, but he adamantly refuses to hear. While some editors might agree with some of his results, the problem is that he is not amenable to the process, being too full of his own self-rightousness, and this diminishes the work everyone could be doing. I concur with all the above comments, but especially Ian's: QuackGuru does not belong on a collaborative project.

Support a ban on this, and ALL other topics and policies, including talk pages. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support a community ban as outlined above by User:J. Johnson and I challenge anyone to read the tortuous discussion above and seriously argue QG is a net asset to the project. --John (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Anon reverting my edits out of spite

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

---

Current IP 2602:304:788B:DF50:95CC:313F:A69C:59A9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
January to August IP 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is my first ANI so bear with me. When I revert this IP (s)he goes into my contribs and reverts something from me.

At Watchmaker analogy I reverted [here] and [here]. (S)he proceeded to revert me [here].

I had similar problems with this anon last March. Also starting with me reverting him at Watchmaker. Different IP but the same person. fwiw here is a discussion on my talk page. These are my warnings to him User talk:2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B#Bebop, here are the diffs [one], [two], [this one he was right].

Also note when editors come on his talk page he's more often than not confrontational and snippy.

My issue here is that he's starting this behavior anew and I'm quite certain the community has strict policies about this kind of disruption.

If I don't present my case well here - let's hope I don't get too much practice. SlightSmile 21:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:HOUND is what you are looking for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

RE Watchmaker, I would suggest when someone is removing un-cited WP:OR that you not reinstate it unless you are in the process of providing a citation - as one of the defenses to a hounding accusation is that it is perfectly acceptable to check another editor's contributions if they are making problematic edits. No comment elsewhere as I have not gone into either your or their editing history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Whatever argument, WP:OR or otherwise a disruptive editor uses, it is a judgement call to revert or not. One could argue (s)he's gaming the system. Even if he's right and I'm wrong at Watchmaker, I have never seen this hounding behaviour being tolerated.

We've all seen IPs and new editors come in here and think they're the boss. His bad faith reverts of my edits is unacceptable and I refuse to start being intimidated by this kind of combative behaviour. If I did one tenth of that, go into editors' contribs who revert me and revert something out of spite how many seconds would it take you to block me. SlightSmile 11:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

How is he hounding? All I see is a content dispute on Watchmaker analogy, which the IP was correct on, and some other reverts that were quickly handled. Also, the IP edits substantially on pages you have not. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you NK. I see it now he's a regular at the miracles article. His revert is still iffy and out of spite but I won't push it on that one. Please note the two reverts in March [one] and [two] are definitely unacceptable hounding. I can't make an ANI on something that far back, but if it starts again I expect the people here to step in for me. He made it clear on his talk he would do tit for tat reverting. Editors shouldn't have to take that kind of harassment. Meanwhile I withdraw my complaint. SlightSmile 12:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That is not hounding. Hounding would be following an editor on every single page they edit and undoing it all, or showing up in every single talk page the user contributed to. Neither one of those is the case here. It is merely a content dispute. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

At Watchmaker we could argue whether or not it is content dispute. That section had been there for years and along comes the boss who's gonna kick some ass. Combative behaviour. Do I have to paste the March diffs from my 12:22 post again! If it doesn't officially qualify for hounding it's definitely a form of disruption. Look again. How many seconds did you say it would take the community to block if I went into an editor's contribs? SlightSmile 14:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Two reverts is not hounding. Please assume good faith. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Good faith that's a good one. Know anymore funny jokes? SlightSmile 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at my talk. I did tons of assume good faith. SlightSmile 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So are there more than these 2 reverts (from March)? Are we missing some other "hounding" or "harassment"? I'm a bit lost here, I confess. Is there some connection between the March edits and the recent edits that convinces you that this is the same person "hounding"? WP:SPI will investigate that for you, if so, although it would need good behavioural evidence by now. -- Begoon 12:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no doubt it's the same person. I realize that three reverts, two of them months ago seems trivial but as I noted, they assured me on their talk they would do tit for tat reverting if I should revert them while (patrolling is that the word?). I've seen editors blocked for less. It's not the three reverts in themselves, it's more like, is this the start of a pattern. As I stated above I withdraw my complaint for now but what's my recourse if they do it again. When has this combative behaviour become acceptable? What am I missing here. SlightSmile 14:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

We have come across each other maybe 3 times in 6 months. if that is hounding, you might as well close the whole project as people edit topics of interest and see each other often while editing these common areas of interest. The questionable behavior is on the filers part, they reverted to include what is clearly WP:OR which is in the first diff and then left a snarky edit summary (which was later reverted by another editor for... clearly being original research). As far as the discussion on my talk page months ago, they left a snarky comment there too, so they got a snarky comment back, it is after all my talk page. I follow no one around, the only editor I have ever had a serious disagreement with it Apollo the Logician and he battled many other editors. My edit history speaks for itself. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey nice to see you again. Note I gave up the word hounding long ago. I'm not going to start digging up diffs on your combative behavior at Watchmaker and apparently neither are the admins here. The Watchmaker issue seems to be resolved anyways so it's unlikely we'll meet again but if we should cross paths for whatever reason you are not to go into my contribs to make a point. SlightSmile 18:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That would require one to assume I went into your contribs to make a point in the first place. Too bad you didn't go back to the first edit in the Watchmaker thread where you reverted me in support of Apollo the Logician, (who is now banned). Apollo was also the one who made the section unencyclopedic [[150]] and you followed it up with another revert after I returned the article to the long term stable version by telling me "Personal analysis - write a book" in the edit summary [[151]]. That is ACTUALLY how we first met. So if you want to accuse other people of bad behavior, at least have the competence to include the full story. I don't have anything else to say, I will assume it is a big misunderstanding. I can assume good faith. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

All good. Nothing more here. SlightSmile 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Zbunyip

User:Zbunyip has been involved in many disruptive edits on Adelaide Park Lands (and subsequesntly other pages), and despite attempts to engage them on User talk:Zbunyip, they have refused to respond, and seem to have engaged in edit warring. Their modus operandi is to replace content that was supported by reliable references with their own biased POV that is contrary to the statements that were there, and they do NOT supply any reliable references to support their own opposite POV. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zbunyip for the trail of havoc they are creating. I would revert their edits, but don't want to be involved in, (or classified as being involved in), an edit war. The inaccuracies and falsehoods they have been introducing worry me. Advice please. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that many of this editor's edits are problematic. I haven't looked at them all in detail, but they have included removal of sourced material with refs and addition of unsourced material without refs. In particular I've had to revert his changes to Tjilbruke (see diff 1) because he substituted the name of one Aboriginal tribe with another, and another editor has just reverted his multiple edits to Kaurna (see diff 2). He has also edited articles on other Aboriginal tribes, the Ngarrindjeri (see diff 3, and the Ramindjeri (also since deleted by another user, see diff 4).

This is a controversial subject area, requiring specialised knowledge of the sources, and I'm not particularly well qualified to go into this very deeply - but it seems that this editor is taking a partisan stance (particularly in the Kaurna/Ramindjeri dispute), and his edits in these particular articles (as well as in other areas), which commenced on 19 August 2017, are similar to those previously made by Mifren, who last edited on 1 August 2017. Bahudhara (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Zbunyip's writing style doesn't remind me of Mifren, despite the thematic similarity of their contributions - I'd be quite surprised if this is a case of sockpuppetry. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, now having seen more of his work, I agree, the styles are very different. And he is now reaching out for advice at the Teahouse and user talkpages. Bahudhara (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Protect my user and talk pages

Please protect my user and talk pages to the "autoconfirmed user" level. huji—TALK 10:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• {1} I assume an admin is going to want to know "Why?". (2)Is there a reason you can't ask for this on WP:RFPP, where protection is generally asked for, except in emergencies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• My bad, and my apologies. I should have looked further than I did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. It really doesn't take much digging to see why this is required and urgent, though I will shortly also revdel the offending edits. @Huji:, take care and get in touch if you require any further assistance. GoldenRing (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: much appreciated, and thank you for taking the extra 10 seconds to investigate, revdel, and understand the urgency huji—TALK 14:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Destructive edits by user Baapkabaap

The user is 2 year old but recently active. The account seems to be making destructive edits and attemps to change history and minute details including changing an hindu religious infobox to muslim possibly with the intention to provoke or attack.

Btw, A warning has already been given to the user by SarahWelch but the user is ignoring it. Please look into it. Thank you.

His wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Baapkabaap

His wiki contribution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Baapkabaap — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotgunMavericks (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hobyo

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

---

Not sure how to report this, as the template for discussion at WP:AN3RR calls for information I can't supply. Two editors, User:Mohamed958543 and newer editor User:Faarax200, have been edit-warring at Hobyo, with dozens of reversions and re-additions today. User:Mohamed958543 is calling it reversion of vandalism, but all I can see is a content dispute:[152], [153], etc.. On day one of Faarax200 editing, they went into dispute resolution over Galkayo: [154], which I can't see in the archived discussion for some reason. But the pair of them have been edit-warring ever since. Faarax200 knowingly logged out to edit, but per Talk:Hobyo#Faraax200 Vandalism this seems to have been in good faith. Mohamed958543 has been blocked for disruptive editing before [155], and I've warned him about 3RR at his talk page and the article talk page, but he's continued right on after the warning: [156], [157], deleting referenced content with no rationale apart from repeated edit summaries along the lines of "Stop ruining the page! you made this new account for Vandalism". Not sure which is the best version to roll back to. Collective wisdom gratefully received. 146.199.101.199 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

For the admins:

Page: Hobyo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User: Mohamed958543 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: Faarax200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked both User:Mohamed958543 (4 days) and User:Faarax200 (2 days) for edit warring at Hobyo. They each continued to revert after being notified of this report. The total is now up to 20 reverts or more. Most likely, not enough people watch these articles or know anything about the issues. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Mathematician makes a mistake and starts personal attacks

Hello,

User:Joel B. Lewis

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=16 November 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

despite having made a rather obvious mistake in

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=16 November 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

regarding the Master theorem. The key citation is "don't be an ass", followed by gibberish that is contradicted by The Art of Computer Programming, page 110, in a section that was written by D. Knuth himself. It would be beneficial if measures are taken against this sort of unfriendly behaviour, and further it should be taken good care that the passage in the article remains correct, possibly by alerting an expert admin. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• So why are you bringing a content dispute to ANI?

Why are you claiming that your change is supported by Knuth, when Knuth isn't even cited on this article?

So far, you have made an uncited change, then were (quite correctly) reverted by another editor with the summary "Not obvious to me that it is a counter-example", which is entirely reasonable, per WP:BRD. You have not given the supporting source you claim. You have not discussed this on the article talk: page. Instead you've reinstated your change, still unsourced. Your comments on a user talk: page (not the best place to start) of "And acknowledging and correcting one's mistakes is of supreme importance." / "I see you misunderstood the Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } \Theta notation." are hardly likely to encourage any reasonable debate.

If you want to make a change, then the onus is on you to explain why this change is an improvement and to support it with source(s) (and yes, Knuth would be seen as WP:RS) - especially when you've been reverted once. It is not good behaviour to run off to ANI complaining about another editor being "unfriendly", when you've begun by impugning their own technical competence. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, let me explain.

First of all, I'm bringing the insult to ANI, and not necessarily the content dispute, which is so basic that the other author's action could be mistaken for vandalism. Obviously, I did explain what was wrong with the article, namely that $f=0$ is a trivial counter-example. I put that into the summary line of

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=16 November 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

.

I mostly disagree with your criticism of my behaviour. I was trying to explain to the author his mistake. Being a mathematician, he could (and should) easily have corrected it. This is why I left a message on his talk page. And if someone insults me, I'm going to notify the admins. I'm sorry, but I'm not your verbal punching ball.

The statement in the article was false, and I corrected it. In the current version of the article there is not the slightest mention any more of the claim (or its falsity), whence a reference to Knuth is unnecessary. (Furthermore, the whole thing is well-explained in the article Big-O notation.)

Further, a mathematical counter-example can easily be verified by any mathematician, and every mathematician will confirm that even though Mr. Lewis is a mathematician, in this particular case his claims are just false (e.g. that I would not allow for zero functions in the definition of the Theta-notation, by corrrectly stating that the lower bound must be non-trivial; otherwise, the $\Theta$ notation would be superfluous anyhow, since it would be equivalent to the $O$ notation).

Then, I have given a supporting reference to my claim (as you yourself acknowledge), namely Knuth's book (and the wikipedia article), and at least the former is the reference on the subject.

And finally, where on earth did I impunge anybody's technical competence?

Please read up what I actually wrote; would save me lots of time. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Andy Dingley for the clear and correct summary of events; I have nothing to add. --JBL (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I now corrected the theorem in a different way.--Mathmensch (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a personal attack. "Don't be an ass" is just another way of saying "Don't be a WP:DICK" or "Don't be a jerk". However, I can say that the tone of that entire paragraph does seem very heated and borderline WP:UNCIVIL. Other than that, this is a content dispute, so I advise both Mathmensch and Joel B. Lewis to remain civil when discussing this disagreement. That's all I really have to add; I don't opine that administrative action is needed at the moment. DarkKnight2149 17:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, but I'm not your verbal punching ball."'

Nor is JBL yours. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others that this seems to be a content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. Yet despite that, the article talk page is empty of related discussion which is never a good sign. If you want to bring a content dispute to ANI, you should at least make sure the article talk page isn't empty i.e. the whole situation isn't so basically flawed it's not even worth us looking at. Please don't bring up any discussions on editor talk pages, I don't particularly care. I also agree that others that "don't be an ass" is basically a variant of don't be a dick, and while as the page used to say, such comments should be made with care no one is every likely to be sanctioned for a single such comment barring other circumstances (e.g. a iban) so it's also something pointless to bring here. In other words, this doesn't belong at ANI. Note that because we don't deal with content disputes, there's rarely any point explaining in depth why you were right and the other party was wrong in the content dispute even if you feel someone else has unfairly characterised your role in said dispute and there's particularly unlikely to be any point when as I said, the whole thing is so basically flawed because the article talk page is empty. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless anyone has anything else to add, I'd say that an administrator closing this discussion is entirely justifiable. Mathmensch and JBL need to work out their differences elsewhere and resolve the content dispute in a civilised manner, preferably on the Talk Page of the article in question. Until the situation gets much worse (which would likely be bad for both users), there's nothing that can really be done here. DarkKnight2149 18:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling someone an "ass", a "dick" or a "jerk" is definitely a personal attack. It is about time that the silly myth about these personal descriptions being acceptable was put to rest. It is always possible to criticise someone's edits without criticising their person. That said, this case can be closed with a warning to both participants to use more civil language. Zero^talk 10:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If I were a mathematician though, I would much rather be called a dick than an incompetent mathematician. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This looks like an aspersion's Richter scale. dick: 1; mathematician: 3; incompetent mathematician: 5; incompetent dick: near infinity (that's the meaning of an open scale). Pldx1 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I second the comment by Zero wholeheartedly. All of these comments dismissing the complaint outright are really not helpful. Please provide helpful advice for users who come to ANI in good faith or don't comment at all. This user quite obviously is not trying to drag the content issue onto ANI. That being said, context is everything, and the "don't be an ass" thing was obviously provoked. The idea behind WP:NPA is to "focus on content, not contributors", and rather than attempting to resolve the content dispute through good faith discussion, Mathmensch, you blatantly insulted JBL's intelligence. We're all human, and I don't think any of us here would not respond with some level of "personal attack" after being so blatantly condescended. Here's a very simple concept: treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't insult people, and maybe you won't be at ANI complaining about being personally attacked. Swarm ♠ 19:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

ElRon lives!

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

---

We all thought that L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986, but here he is editing Wikipedia as User:L Ron Hubbard! What are the odds? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

This template L Ron Hubbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes it easier for others to check on this editor. MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Nicknames of Donald Trump

Looks like hours after article List of nicknames of Donald Trump was deleted via [158], article Nicknames_of_Donald_Trump was created. WP:G4?. Objective3000 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is definitely G4, deleted to Make Wikipedia Great Again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for reopening a closed discussion on ANI. I think that someone higher up the food chain than I ought provide guidance to Keizers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The editor appears insistent upon adding rather gross nicknames for a living person on many articles. The last strawish thingy for me was citing an article discussing female genitalia on an article about a nursery rhyme. I'll provide diffs is needed; but, just look at their contribs. Or tell me I'm wrong and reclose. Objective3000 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big secret that I think Trump is an asshole, yet somehow I manage to refrain from disrupting articles to express this view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Never give up hope, we can agree on some points, POV disruption and assholes :) - FlightTime (open channel) 13:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The following three diffs are sufficient for any uninvolved admin to indefinitely topic ban Keizers (talk · contribs) from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. I only just added that notification to the user's talk but I do not believe that is an impediment to a topic ban.

• the nickname Shitgibbon
• "Cheeto Jesus" and variations thereon
• real name was "Fuckface Von Clownstick"

Would an admin please stop the disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello there, a ban is not necessary, I have received the message. I would like to point out that no one at any time made it clear that it was not allowed to mention genuine RELEVANT events (e.g. the Twitter war between Jon Stewart and Trump). The REAL issue here seems to be that I must censor the offensive name in particular. I think you need to be absolutely clear to users about this. In any case the message is clear to me. Keizers (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have just removed (censored) the offensive name in question from the Jon Stewart article. I did leave the mention of the Twitter war, please let me know if the entire subject must be removed from Wikipedia, due to its potentially being upsetting to our President. Thanks. Keizers (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Pointy sarcasm is almost guaranteed to help here, under the circumstances. Well done.-- Begoon 13:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @Johnuniq: While the letter of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware does allow sanctioning of editors who have been made aware of DS but haven't edited since, it would be extremely unusual and, I suspect, quite controversial. They were alerted to BLP DS at 01:55 today, made twelve edits (all related to nicknames of Donald Trump but more than half of them to article talk or user talk) and then were alerted to AP2 DS at 11:20, since which time they haven't edited. While that does technically give us leeway under BLP DS, I don't think sanctions are appropriate right now.

@Keizers: you are clearly editing against consensus regarding nicknames of Donald Trump. Drop the stick now and go do something else, or there will be sanctions. Note after EC: I'm glad you've got the message. Leave it alone and let other editors sort it out. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

A typo destroyed the ping @Johnuniq: GoldenRing (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please also give me feedback regarding the editing of other articles e.g. Jon Stewart. Is it permissible to add content from secondary, reliable sources about relevant events (e.g. Twitter war with Trump), but simply NOT permissible to mention the insulting name that Stewart used? Keizers (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Feedback? Yeah, stop being a fool. We're mostly bored with that. -- Begoon 13:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks have no place here. Keizers (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Keizers: Go and read our policy on editing content related to living people. That something is verifiable in reliable, independent, secondary sources is not grounds for inclusion in an article. Verifiability is necessary for it to be included in an article, but not sufficient. In particular, when you add content related to a living person and someone reverts your edit, the burden is on you — not to demonstrate that the content you added is verifiable, but that there is consensus among editors for it to be re-added to the article. Where your edits related to living people are reverted, you must not re-insert them without getting consensus for the material (or, where an editor has objected on specific grounds, you must not re-insert them without genuinely addressing those grounds). Your edits to Jon Stewart have been reverted; you must not re-insert them without solid consensus behind them. You have taken the first step, by starting a discussion on the talk page; now let it play out. GoldenRing (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive feedback. If I had had that guidance before, we could have saved a lot of time Keizers (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Begoon: I don't think personal attacks are going to help here, either. GoldenRing (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Jon Stewart article is the only one where you may have an argument for inclusion as Stewart and Trump are having a bit of a tussle. (Although, I think it’s trivia at this point). OTOH. Trump is not having a battle with Humpty Dumpty and Cheetos’ mascot, Chester Cheetah. But, you’ll need to gain consensus on the Stewart talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, on this article I'm not going to revert after the first unsubstantiated revert, as the reason given was "it doesn't belong here": I've removed the offensive term in question, but kept the mention of the Twitter war. I agree that some people might find it trivial (I do not), however no more so than half the article.Keizers (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That was a lot of nicknames. I appreciate the time you spent gathering them. I'm not sure which ones are common. The inclusion criteria that they must be common is too restrictive. QuackGuru (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Need somebody to look at the interaction between QubixQdotta and myself as it has descended into personal attacks and now threats

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this but things seem to be getting rather out of hand between User:QubixQdotta and myself to the point that I think that it can be considered an incident.

He has accused me of Gaslighting (diff), which is not a term I had heard of before, but based on the article I take to be a personal attack as it refers to an intentionally abusive form of dishonest manipulation. I am genuinely unable to see how my actions could be interpreted that way so I removed the comment and warned him for personal attacks. He has doubled down on this, reposting the accusation on his own talk page(diff) he has since posted what I take to be a threat on my talk page: diff (I'm not too bothered by the first part of that but the part saying "You might be seeing me a lot these days, so maybe trying to be my worst enemy right now isn't the best idea. Just saying." doesn't seem too healthy.)

OK. So how did we get here? Did I provoke him? I'll admit to taking a robust line with the large number of editors seeking to engage in revisionism on Fascism, Nazism and related articles. (Nice uncontroversial subjects, right?) I see the attempts to recast Fascism and Nazism as being left wing, or anything other than right wing, as revisionism and contrary to the historical consensus, and that has long been the general line on those pages' talk pages. That said, I also try to remember that there are intentional revisionists and those who have been confused into repeating the revisionist line in good faith and not to bite these people. I am also well aware that the motivation for this is more to distance right wing politics from Nazism than to attempt to rehabilitate it. I am sympathetic to those who do not wish to be associated with Nazism (I mean, who would?) but this is not a legitimate was to do it. In this case I may have jumped the gun a little but I think I was correct to see something more than a confused editor here.

Let's step through it chronologically: (I'll prefix QQ for QubixQdotta and DR for myself)

• QQ: diff - It starts here. An unreferenced revisionist edit to Nazism.
• DR: diff - I revert.
• DR: diif - I issue a level 2 warning for deliberate factual errors. I am prepared to concede that that was a little harsh. We have had a tidal wave of this sort of bad editing and I may have let my annoyance with others spill over into this. In retrospect maybe it should have been a level 1 or 2 for unreferenced changes.
• QQ: diff - The usual revisionist line about the Nazi's being "socialist" on my talk page but far more egregiously than normal he flat out accuses the mainstream history books which we use as sources of dishonesty.
• DR: diff - I reply explaining why this is wrong. I'll admit that my annoyance is showing as I have heard this line so many times before and I do find it hard to believe that it is advanced in good faith when combined with an attack on the sources in general. I'd call it robust not abusive. I use the word "stupid" to refer to the idea of taking Nazi terminology at face value but I do not call QubixQdotta stupid. I try to send him off to look at the Talk page archives, look at the sources and to use the article talk page, not my talk page, if he wants to press it further. I'll admit the end is a bit overdramatic but I think the basic point, that anybody who doesn't recognise mainstream sources as valid is not going to get very far here, is valid.
• QQ: diff - Replies with the accusation of "gaslighting" and a claim that he is trying to work constructively, which I find hard to take seriously. (Over on Talk:Nazism he was questioning sources again, not in any specific way, just not really accepting that sources are valid in general, a line his has since softened.)
• DR: diff - I revert the accusation and rollup what has gone before.
• DR: diff - I warn him, only at level 2, against personal attacks.
• QQ: diff - Copies the accusation to his talk page.
• QQ: diff - Posts two messages on my talk page. One is a general expression of annoyance, which I'm OK with, but the second one seems to be a quite blatant threat and that is what brings us here.

And that's where we are. There is also some back and forth on Talk:Nazism but that is not as bad and I won't bore you all by itemising it.

In retrospect, I would have handled it differently, playing out the rope a lot more calmly for him to hang himself with, but I do not believe that I provoked him in any way that can justify a complaint of gaslighting (which, based on the article, is a much more serious accusation than it may at first sound) or that final threat in which he seems to be saying that he is moving in and taking over here. The threat is seriously disturbing. That is why I have brought this here. Maybe, or maybe not, the rest of the story is overkill but I didn't want to give the false impression that this came from nowhere.

It would be great if somebody could look this over and decide where, if anywhere, we go from here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You called me "stupid" and a "horse that was brought to water" when I was simply trying to have a civil discussion with you. I tried to keep my cool and talk to you, but you went back to insults towards my intelligence and motive for editing here (not constructive and by far not WP:KEEPCOOL or WP:GOODFAITH). I am here to help the project and I have gotten nothing but negativity and insults about me. What I meant by my statement was that I don't want to be your enemy if I'm going to be working with you on the article. I admit the statement could definately be taken out of context but thats not what I meant. But anyways, I don't care for the way I've been treated by DanielRigal and I can honestly say that I have never sent any bad words your way about what you believe in or about your intelligence. From an honest place of respect for you coming into this article, I feel very disrespected as a fellow editor and it really isn't okay. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 00:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Gaslighting is making one question their own perception (you claim was an "attack"; it was more of a expression of how I felt) - which I said based on the fact you said, "If you really do believe that all the history books are wrong (and intentionally dishonest) then Wikipedia is probably not for you. In fact, that seems to be a view incompatible with any understanding of the real world at all." Another insult towards my intelligence, I was honestly offended because I'm a free thinker and I question everything. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 01:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Although the rhetoric got slightly out of hand, at the core of this is a content dispute. QQ made an unsourced edit based on their interpretation of Nazism, basically WP:OR, which was correctly reverted and Daniel has admitted to being harsher than necessary.

QQ's followup comment, Daniel's 4th diff, shows a misunderstanding of sourcing. Irrespective of what we, as editors, think of the source material, if the source is reliable and states that Nazism is far right wing then that is what will be entered. QubixQdotta, the "stupid" comment could not be interpreted as being directed at you and rather as a generic statement. At this point, what I see is that QubixQdotta overreacted a bit and things got heated but nothing that can't be mended. However, if you, QubixQdotta, want to push an edit like the one that started this mess then you better make sure you have solid reliable sources that back you up. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That original edit was made on the fly because I thought it was vandalism. I don't usually edit political articles, so I didn't even know people considered Nazism far-right. It was alien to me. "QubixQdotta overreacted a bit and things got heated but nothing that can't be mended." I appreciate the kind words but honestly, I'm positive I kept my cool the whole time. (maybe tone doesn't translate well through text?) While I'm sorry I didn't source on the "far-left" edit, that doesn't change the fact DanielRigal escalated the whole thing into calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and a "horse that was brought to water" and even recently "playing out the rope a lot more calmly for him to hang himself with". With all due respect, I didn't say anything of that nature to DanielRigal. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Another misunderstanding is that my motivation is to take away sources. That's not my motivation. It's to elaborate on why academics think in these diverse ways. I read the Nazism article and noticed very simplistic bouts of information being sourced heavily with pages and pages of information from textbooks: "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics." (sourced here Nazism#cite_note-Fritzsche_Eatwell_Griffin-13). It made me extremely curious as to how this extremely sophisticated 3-in-1 source could be summed up into such a simple sentence (it wasn't even sourced a second time), and it made me extremely curious to know what was in those pages and how I could utilize them more effectively. The article just left a lot to be answered. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're coming here to look for answers and make edits and to elaborate on why academics think in these diverse ways then you're in the wrong place. The whole point of Wikipedia is to act as a collation of what reliable sources say and not to provide a forum on the discourse of whichever topic one may be curious about. Nor is it a place to interpret what one source says against what another says. If you don't see what the main goal of Wikipedia is and how your first edit set things off, then DanielRigal is correct in saying that Wikipedia is not for you. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again with due respect, you're missing what I'm saying. I did not say anything about interpreting sources or providing a forum. I'm talking about taking what these academics have said and providing their information as is. What I'm doing is totally based on Wikipedia policies about WP:NPOV. What I want to do is the exact opposite of interpretation. It's pure fact and facts about the views of academics. I discover facts, I don't interpret. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 04:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV. It does not mean that we give equal WP:Weight to every possible idea and theory. We base our articles on the consensus of experts, in this case historians of the Nazi regime. Now, we also will sometimes mention other WP:fringey viewpoints, but even then they have to be espoused by recognized experts, and we do not present them as the prevailing view or give them the same exposure as the generally recognized viewpoint.

In this instance, that Nazism was a far-right movement is undoubtedly accepted by the vast majority of historians and political scientists. Yes "Socialism" is in the name, quite deliberately so, as when Hitler changed the name of the party he was attempting to attract as many people to it as possible. The early party platform (the so-called "25 points", which was never rescinded) did include socialist programs, and there was even a "socialist" wing of the party, led by the Strasser brothers, but Hitler drove Otto Strasser out and purged Gregor Strasser in the Night of the Long Knives, just as he did Ernst Rohm, another socialist-leaning Nazi, and Josef Goebbels, a Strasserite with a socialist background, fell totally under Hitler's spell. In the end, even though the 25 points was never withdrawn, and even though some programs Hitler initiated when he took power were quasi-socialistic, overall, the party and the regime was not left-wing, and the "Socialist" in the party's name was honored mostly in the breech. To spend much more time then I've done here exploring the socialist aspects of Nazism would be to give it WP:UNDUE weight.

So, bottom line, you've been here a little over a year, but you apparently haven't totally grasped how things are done and what our editorial policies are. I'd suggest that you bone up on those before you get yourself in another editing dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And please, fix your sig. It's not only unreadable, it's so far down below the line that it visually interferes with the line below it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No I actually didn't misunderstand NPOV. I read the part about undue weight too. I'm talking about taking what these academics have said and providing their information as is. What I'm doing is totally based on Wikipedia policies about WP:NPOV. What I want to do is the exact opposite of interpretation. It's pure fact and facts about the views of academics. I discover facts, I don't interpret. [qub/x q;otta] ▤▧ 05:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, you actually have misinterpreted it, because you're still saying the same thing, and it's not what NPOV means. You may have read the part about "undue weight", but you obviously didn't understand it. Considering how adamant you are about this, and how resistant you are to accepting that you are wrong, I think it may be worthwhile for editors to take a look at your article edits to see if you've been following this false reading of NPOV in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for altering your sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@QubixQdotta: Please further adjust your signature to conform to MOS:CONTRAST, thanks. — fortunavelut luna 09:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

On my browser, the username is unclickable. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, his username isn't linked. :P — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The boxes after the name appear to have the required link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The comment about QQ being around for a little over a year reminded me of something QQ said about having been "a very experienced Wikipedian" when I welcomed them back in May 2016. This led to a rabbit hole, and I ended up filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jump Guru. Oops. It plausibly looks to me like a dormant account was reactivated to !vote in an AFD in 2016. It's a bit stale, but regardless, QQ definitely claimed to be an experienced editor shortly after the account was created. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, what a surprise, you could knock me over with a feather! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

96.240.96.130

Someone please block this IP 96.240.96.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), please, at least for a week or two (I would bring it to AIV but this is a rush ask); all of their edits since the 4th have been vandalism/unsourced television show and network vandalism, and they're using the 'multiple edits to muddle quick rollbacks' strategy to get their edits to stick. Just discovered tonight and how they haven't gotten well past their last warning is incredible to me. Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning 2

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

---

This bot reverted my legitimate edits to Johnny Gaudreau and gave me a vandalism warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoFlamesGo (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nah, he's working just fine. You were reverted by more than one editor who told you not to add that information and to discuss the matter. You did the opposite of that. While I would not fuss at a human editor identifying your edit as vandalism, you did behave in a way that would reasonably make a clever bot think you were engaging in vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The OP made the same complaint about another of their edits in #User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning up the page, where they were told that their edit was inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume User:Beyond My Ken meant inappropriate? Given they got blocked for it there. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Anyone want to help roll back vandalism?

Hi. User:185.212.169.218 has been adding the same phone number to a large number of articles about universities. I've reverted some but have to go do other stuff tonight. Does anyone have time to revert this IP's other contributions? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This also needs a block as the spree is ongoing. I've reported at AIV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. I'll revert it whenever I see it. RC is moving a bit too quickly for my comfort, right now. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 06:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:185.212.169.201 seems to be related, if not the same person. Reverting their changes. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 06:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There are multiples. Can we get a range block? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been done ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah. User:51.15.153.37 seems to follow the same pattern. Reverted all of their edits I've seen so far. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 06:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Poof! Like magic, it stops editing ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Pinging MelanieN as this looks similar to an existing scam on many Indian university articles. Ravensfire (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruption by Etherialemperor

The edit that spurred this report is here where Etherialemperor calls me a "fag".

This coolness after disruption on Richard Spencer where Etherialemperor repeatedly changed "supremacist" to "nationalist" for the entry on Richard B. Spencer, despite the lead sentence of that BLP calling him a white supremacist. Etherialemperor tried to edit the BLP despite the HTML comment warning against such a change to the lead. Additionally, editors who reverted Etherialemperor where called editing in "bad faith" (WP:NPA) for disagreeing. This user's POV and apparent dislike of certain types of people is affecting their editing and causing disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for the personal attack, given there's no doubt it was meant as such. There are other issues here, but initially I'd like to see how they act once their block expires -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

NB. edit referenced above has been revision deleted -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response! EvergreenFir (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation by Wikipedia...Dr Mukesh Hariawala

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

---

Hello Administrators,

My attorneys have reported that Wikipedia is displaying my picture illegaly on a page which is not my profile. I have asked the profile author to put page for " Speedy Deletion " .

I confirm that DO NOT give copyright permission to Wikipedia to use my picture on any of their pages or their sister websites.

Remove it immediately.

Location : https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Mukesh_Hariawala_in_2012.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

I do not wish to be logged it but you can cummunicate with me directly at

(Redacted)

Thank you.

Dr Mukesh Hariawala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.176.187 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: See also this thread at WP:AN: [159] and this AfD: [160]. -- Begoon 09:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Best practices (re-creation of deleted page)

Monitor Records (New York) was prodded by TenPoundHammer (note, I'm pinging but not "notifying" because his actions were absolutely correct and not up for review) because there was no indication of notability. I know this to be an important classical label in the 1960s-1970s, so I de-prodded and found sources. However, it became blindingly obvious that the article was a blatant copyright violation of the Smithsonian page, so I deleted the article. I plan on creating this article again (non-copyvio) with the sources I found, and my question is thus: Should I re-create the article, which would give me credit in editing history for having created the article (when in fact I am not the true "originator" of the subject), or would it be better to restore the article, and then revdelete all previous versions prior to the "replacement" version I create (thereby giving article creator credit to the copyright violator). I've not run into this situation before in my editing "career" here, and I'd like broader input into what the community deems the most ethical course of action in this situation. Not typical ANI material (fortunately) and maybe this belongs at Village Pump, but I want eyes. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Create it as a new article. You shouldn't feel guilty about appearing to be the first person to create a proper article on the subject, because you will be that, but if you wish you can put a short note of explanation on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well; we should only submit articles that are in line with policy. If someone has failed to do that before you, that's of no concern of yours. Pace NYB, but I do not agree that TP notes are necessary- think how many times this actuall happens- even accidentally, where one is not aware of a previous version. Anyway. — fortunavelut luna 14:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a talkpage note is not at all necessary; was merely noting that it is permissible if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course, thanks. I also agree there's no harm in it whatsoever, and it's to be praised as an example of how occasionally editors can go beyond the spirit of collegiality, and by doing so, make up a little ground for those who do not  :) — fortunavelut luna 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Put the Deletions in the Template:Article history on the talk page, then anyone can see the history. - X201 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

More eyes as requested :P Create the new version and template the talk as suggested by X201. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Per FIM and NYB, this is fine. Talk page suggestions by NYB/X201/FT are not harmful, but not needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Lankandude2017

Lankandude2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently been adding original research (in the form of material from sources that do discuss the article subject) to articles including British Sri Lankan Tamil. This has been discussed at Talk:British Sri Lankan Tamil (and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#British Sri Lankan Tamil article), but Lankandude2017 continues to revert to his preferred version of the article, against talk page consensus. This has already resulted in one block for editing warring, and Lankandude2017 has now returned from that block to continue the same behaviour. He has also been warned for accusing me of racism, as discussed at User talk:Lankandude2017#Accusation of racism and in the couple of sections below. I have generally been trying not to rise to this, as it is clear that several other editors are keeping an eye on the situation, but he has now signed a talk page post as me, which is getting pretty disruptive. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And now Lankandude is adding frivolous/malicious AIV reports against Cordless Larry and myself. --bonadea contributions talk 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

...and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonadea (with no evidence of sockpuppetry). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI page deleted (by me), and Lankandude blocked for a week (by Alex Shih). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the admins already handling this, this is hallmark behaviour of a particular sockmaster, and I've re-blocked accordingly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Violation?

Is this a violation of this? Tiderolls 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That it is. EEng 16:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and there have been several recent crystal-clear warnings that this type of post is a violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked one week by User:Ivanvector. — fortunavelut luna 16:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well I was pretty blunt so I cant see how they do not know that is a violation. Albeit of the griping category. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If not for Only in death's warning I might have let this go, we do allow some leeway for users to adjust to their community-imposed restrictions. But with the plainly-worded warning there's really no way that I can see that they weren't aware that the edit would definitely be in violation of the restriction. This wasn't just testing the limits of the ban, it was repeating almost exactly the sort of edit (objecting to "de-Americanizing" a biography) which led to the ban discussion in the first place. Easy and necessary block, in my opinion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone offering an opinion. My take was that the warnings were adequately explicit; I was a bit stunned to see Light show's post. I thought it was possible I was overlooking something obvious. Regards, Tiderolls 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Emanuel argento disruptive edits

I'm not an expert of such situations, I don't know exactly where to ask for help and I apologize in advance if this is not the proper place to make such requests.

The new user Emanuel argento is erasing content on the article Cassata. Nothing big, honestly, but the problem is that he neither gives substantial arguments, nor shows sources. He didn't stop even when I provided sources to motivate the presence of such content on that page. He kept reverting my fixes, erased the source I provided and trolled me on the edit summary. Today I found out that he erased again my edit. At this point I don't know what to do.

While he has never been warned before on en.wikipedia, I found out that he accumulated a lot of controversy on it.wikipedia, as you can see here (Sorry for linking a page in a foreign language, but I think it is necessary. A web translator may help). Despite admins and reviewers gave him several suggestions, advice and warnings to stop his damaging edits, he ignored everything and everyone. He was also notified with a "block" warning (sorry, I don't know how this procedure is called on en.wikipedia) after several admins and reviewers reverted 84 edits by him in 2 weeks (!). In his defense, he said he doesn't want to be annoyed by admins, because what he say is true (!!). That's how collaborative this guy is.

In the last weeks I reverted other odd edits by him (for example, here), so I suppose he is probably giving the same, bad contribution here on en.wikipedia. That's why I showed you his it.wikipedia talk page.

I just read on the guidelines that, in order to solve an edit war (like the one occured on the cassata article), a discussion on an article's talk page is the best thing to do, but in this specific case I think it'd be useless (he doesn't listen to admins, why should he listen a regular user? He's completely uncollaborative).

On a side note, I noticed he seldom motivates his edits, but when he do, he writes in Italian. I think this is not completely fair and constructive to the community (I can understand him since I'm Italian, but what about other non Italian-speaking editors?).

That said, I kindly ask an admin to keep an eye on Emanuel argento's diruptive behavior on en.wikipedia. I also ask that some admin could help me to restore all the legit content he erased from the cassata article.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simostar (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban for all articles related to Palermitan cakes or confections, narrowly construdeled. EEng 19:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Seriously, can we change the header on this page to read This page is for reporting and discussing urgent or chronic incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors? Not that anyone would read it anyway. But really – an argument over whether a cake does or does not have chocolate in it [161] is an ANI matter? On the other hand, there seems to be a pattern here [162] so maybe we should take this to Arbcom.

User:Edwardx

This user is continuously tagging pages which passes notability. Even though the user has many years experience , he is not even looking at the refeneces to check whether it is reliable or not. Quoting some recent incidents Tagged Prod, this page has enough and more reliable references including interviews, radio interviews etc , Previous tagged CSD , when removed with reason, placed Prod even though it has enough reliable sources These 2 articles are related and One article was created by me. Being an user with around 11 year experience as per the wikipedian's front page, the user is not follwing Wikipedia guidelines for placing tags in pages.Interesting thing is that many articles created by this user is also tagged for deletion by other admin. Those were created without following guidelines of wiki. This is not good for wikipedia and it must be warned. Any one is free to talk to me at my talk page BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC) BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of him mis-tagging articles that someone besides you did not make? Because that's gonna be the thing that distinguishes whether he's mis-tagging articles or you're just assuming bad faith and making a revenge post. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Are we supposed to assume Bettersmiley's name and interest in this article is just a startling coincidence? An article that was created by a sock and edited almost exclusively by other socks? Are we also to assume their keen interest in this dude by the same sock farm is also a coincidence? I think not.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ejdjr account appears to be in use for promoting advertisement of his affiliated institution and personnel using Wikipedia as a platform

The use of Wikipedia for the purpose of advertisement of an institution with which User:Ejdjr is affiliated by the creation of a new page for it is against Wikipedia policy. His edits at The Friedman Brain Institute have had extensive negative comments from several administrators and other editors which seem to be ignored. User:Ejdjr is also removing quoted text from biography articles about personnel at his institution written by the NY Times which he simply calls ungrammatical and deletes at will. This he did at Dennis Charney several times. User:Ejdjr appears to be involved in the use of his account on multiple occassions for furthering the purposes of his affiliated institution and its related personnel by trying to create a new article to promote it and by trying to delete referenced materials associated with personnel at his affiliated institution. He has been informed on his Talk page that if he persists in using Wikipedia for the purpose of creating an advertisement page again for his affiliated institution or deleting referenced material from articles associated with personnel related to his institution that his account priviledges may be restricted which User:Ejdjr continues to ignore. Since I am only an infrequent editor at Wikipedia, it seemed appropriate to leave this report for further eval. 146.203.126.241 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Xenophrenic with respect to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4

I have no doubt that User:Xenophrenic is a good and well-meaning person, but his passion for defending atheism as a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come has led to tendentious editing and accusing editors who disagree with him of having an anti-atheist agenda. To this end, Xenophrenic made 64 posts in the discussion regarding Category:Persecution by atheists, challenging virtually every editor who disagreed with him, and including unpleasant comments like "That is yet another demonstration of the quality of your reading comprehension skills", "please troll at a different discussion page", "You're agenda is showing, and I don't think a closing editor is going to take you seriously". Granted, there were provocations going both ways, but Xenophrenic was the most active participant in this conduct. It was also pointed out in that discussion that Xenophrenic has tended towards edit warring in attempting to depopulate categories that he feels portray atheists negatively.

My involvement with this topic began when I closed this long-backlogged discussion (a very difficult close, due to the extensive discussion and numerous options proposed by participants), finding no clear consensus to delete, but renaming the category to a title with much narrower scope that was suggested by multiple participants in the discussion, Category:Persecution by atheist states. Xenophrenic appealed the close, which is certainly his right. The appeal was closed as endorsing the close of the initial discussion. However, Xenophrenic's conduct of confronting every disagreeing participant at length continued during the appeal. In a discussion with only about a dozen participants, Xenophrenic made 28 comments, often with the imprimatur that those who disagree with him just don't get it, aren't reading the discussion, or have an anti-atheist agenda.

I also sought to populate the newly refined category with clearly relevant articles and subcategories such as Category:Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, as articles in these categories clearly describe efforts to impose state atheism through persecution of religious practitioners. The population of such a category is, in my view, standard operating procedure, the same as when I close a discussion as "delete", and then remove links to the deleted target from articles, or when I close a multimove request as moved, and then update the links to reflect the changed page titles. Generally, these efforts are uncontroversial. In this case, Xenophrenic reverted these edits, and has continued to edit war over these additions - he has, for example, removed the category from the subcategory eight times, and has been reverted eight times, by several different editors. Clearly Xenophrenic knows to time his reversions to avoid the letter of 3RR, but not the spirit of it. Xenophrenic's rationale continues to be the belief that the category should not exist at all, that atheism can not be a motivation for people (or states) to act negatively, and that any sources to the contrary must be biased and agenda-driven.

I have no further interest in this topic, but I feel constrained to seek some limitation on Xenophrenic's conduct in this area - even if only a break from this topic for a few months. bd2412 T 20:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)