Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Stalking complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two questions:

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

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

Magioladitis' response was incredible:

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

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

EEng 02:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Response and boomerang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose indef ban for Magioladitis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for closure

A somewhat biased summary and suggestion for closure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion is not relevant to the request for closure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh pish-tosh to that: WP:NOTBURO. Once a sanction is brought up in a discussion such as this, it's on the table: M. doesn't need to get a notification of it by certified mail or something. If he's been following the discussion, then he's had more than fair notice that these ideas were being bandied about; if he hasn't been following it, that's his own fault, since he started it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'm talking about notice, not service. What's being suggested here is the equivalent of saying Magioladitis consented to one or the other proposal by dint of not challenging that specific proposal. In reality, Magioladitis could not have realistically challenged any particular proposal because there was no concrete proposal on the table, except for a siteban at one point. It's simply neither fair nor feasible to require Magioladitis to challenge every single alternative proposal that was made if only because it would require a long, meandering response that nobody would read. It sets up a marvelous catch-22. But, as has been noted at ArbCom recently, using catch-22 situations to remove "the unwanteds" appears to have become ANI's trade. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC) You seem to want to turn us into a formal legal system, which just isn't going to happen. Again, WP:NOTBURO. Bringing up a possible sanction in the discussion itself is sufficient notification, IMO. 'Nuff said. As for "removing the unwanteds", I'm totally unsympathetic. If the community doesn't want an editor to be here, the editor shouldn't be here. We're a private community in which all of our participation is at the sufference of the WMF and the community of each project. If enough people think Editor X is a royal pain in the ass, Editor X should be given the heave-ho. Editor X can always ask to be reinstated, which happens pretty darn often, with the exception of the worst cases. It must always be remembered that this isn't real life, this is a project to build and improve an online encyclopedia, and anything that gets in the way of that should be gotten rid of, toot sweet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC) I think that's an unfortunate understanding of the situation, and contrary both to the longstanding policy of how the community works and the basic rudiments of fairness. If we're going to have civility, a collegial editing environment, and above all, consensus rule, then you can't have an environment where a self-selected group of busybodies (i.e., the ANI brigade) removing people from the project for any reason or no reason. Process is important. Fairness is important. Neither of these are present in the dystopian environment you describe. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC) It's not contrary to my understanding of how the community works in the 12 years I've been here. In fact, it is precisely how the community works, and how it should work. We are not a community of lawyers, we are a community of editors, and thank goodness for that. Mag. had more than sufficient due process, notification, service, whatever you want to call it, and was able to participate in the discussion at every point along the way, with no restrictions. If Wikipedia ever becomes a place where hand-wringing about "process" and "fairness" is more important than writing an encyclopedia, we're dead in the water. That's why we have a little thing called WP:IAR. In the meantime, the folks below me are waiting for the information you said was pertinent at the current RFAR. Instead of responding to me again, why don't you provide them with a specific link to that case request that illustrates that "using catch-22 situations to remove 'the unwanteds' appears to have become ANI's trade", which is what you claimed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Wow, bold and italics? I'm honored. 😂 Sadly, you're absolutely 100% dead wrong. We are a community that prides itself on process, procedure, and fair play. IAR is for situations where the documented processes and procedures would seem to deliver a preposterous, unfair, or outrageous result, and where no reasonable person would find the outcome of those processes to be correct. What's happening here is the typical ANI steamroller effect that is so well documented, so widely acknowledged, that it's become a sitewide joke. Process is unimportant, you claim? Why do we have CSD? Why do we have AfD? Why do we have AIV and the tiered warning levels? Why do we have ArbCom? One can effortlessly point to dozens of processes and procedures that exist and clearly contradict the alternative facts you're putting forth in this situation. But let that get in the way of ANI's purging of someone that ANI doesn't like? God help us all. The walls are going to collapse because fairness and process are holding up a hanging. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC) (Don't flatter yourself, I use bold and italics all the time.) "We are a community that prides itself on process, procedure, and fair play." Nope. We are a community that prides itself on having built the best online encyclopedia in history. Everything else is entirely incidental. You, for instance, would do well to make some more contributions to the encyclopedia, and do less lawyerly argumentation, no matter how much you enjoy doing it: your 2:1 ratio of Mainspace to Wikipedia Space edits is pretty poor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Mendaliv "as has been noted at ArbCom recently, using catch-22 situations to remove "the unwanteds" appears to have become ANI's trade". Diff please. —Sladen (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Read the current RfAR and the attached statements. And those are only the most recent examples of criticism of ANI's techniques found in statements by and before that body. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Mendaliv, please help myself and others to follow by supplying an exact Permalink and quote/diff that is being referred to. —Sladen (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Just read it. It's in multiple statements and the overall tenor of the discussion. I'm not playing the "diffs pls" game with you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Mendaliv, please help us out here. A name, or a date-stamp, or a particular phrase, or anything… —Sladen (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC) (Special:PermanentLink/806928850 does not appear to contain "Catch-22" or "Unwanted" or "Trade"). And my statement doesn't purport to be a direct quote of anything at ArbCom. As I said, I'm not playing the "difs pls xD" game. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC) You're complaining because Magioladitis hasn't been given enough formal warnings about every proposed sanction in this discussion, and because not every proposed sanction had its own dedicated section with all formalities you consider necessary; but when you make some claim and people want some actual evidence for it, you can't be bothered and are not playing that game? Your double standards (and the similarities with the proposal for VE by Magioladitis and the total lack of evidence they produced, vs. the amount of evidence they requested of others) become more and more apparent. I guess that, if there would be a formal uninvolved close of this discussion, your attempts to obstruct this time and again would be dismissed out of hand. Fram (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Some claims don't need evidence. The well-known catastrophe that is ANI when it comes to complex disputes is one of those claims. Sladen tipped his hand with that last response, anyway; it's the old "give me a diff that has those exact words in it" dodge. Both of us know there's no diff with those exact words in it. That wasn't the point of my claim, and it's not my argument. If anything, the responses from Sladen, BMK, and yourself do much more to prove my claim than anything. Look for what appears to be leverage and blast away at it until the discussion has progressed far away enough from the claim that everyone has forgotten it. Well, I'm not doing that. I reiterate my claim that it would have been unfair and infeasible to require Magioladitis to respond to every single alternative proposal that was even hinted at above, or risk any argument against those alternative proposals considered waived. It would have required a wall of text that you and I both know every single reader at ANI would skip over. That is unacceptable and it places Magioladitis at an unacceptable disadvantage when trying to protect himself from the mob rule that presides at ANI. Actually, my learned colleague BMK's response above is far more telling than anything. He seems to argue that fairness does not matter, and that the community should simply be able to remove those individuals that it finds annoying, rather than those who clearly violate well-established norms of conduct. Wikipedia is not an anarchocapitalist society. Our encyclopedia-building community is founded on fairness, respect, civility, collegiality, and cooperation. Your own response, accusing another editor of being an obstructionist when he rises to the defense of another editor who, as here, so clearly cannot adequately defend himself, sums up everything that's wrong with ANI right now. It is shameful what ANI is attempting to do here, and that is why I so seriously want this case sent to the Committee, where it can be presided over with process and procedure. So, no, I will not be providing diffs to prove what an absolute joke ANI is. If you have a problem with that, you are free not to respond further. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Umm, your claims were about a specific Arbcom request which was supposed to be evidence of your general opinion about ANI. That someone (well, multiple people) actually still reads your comments is evidence of the patience and AGF inherent in most editors here; that those people then find your arguments lacking, unconvincing, unsupported by what you claim supports them, is not something that "sums up everything that is wrong with ANI right now", it shows simply what is wrong with your comments here. Your "rising to the defense of another editor" doesn't grant you immunity from the basic rules of discussion or logic. Fram (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia has historically been terrible at automation restrictions: it seems unwilling to write them in a way that they won't either be gamed mercilessly (the long Betacommand saga) or else serve as the pretext for draconian enforcement against perfectly good, low-volume editing (Rich F's 1-year block). There were some proposals in the Betacommand 3 workshop that I liked, but none got passed. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

  173.228.123.121, an editor requested template editor status. (At WP:PERM/TE: permalink Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Template_editor#User:Magioladitis—subsequently withdrawn after checking WP:TPEGRANT) . It is unclear how automation would be connected to that. —Sladen (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the connection either. Template vandalism is a fairly new thing: it only appeared after we got paranoid about defending against a problem that we didn't have. I edited templates from my IP address all the time before that. I'd go ahead and grant TE to Magio on the theory that it can always be withdrawn if he messes up too much. As long as the volume is reasonable, template errors are mostly easy to revert, unlike when someone gets overenthusiastic with a bot. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I agree, It would seem to be foolhardy to give to an editor about whom there have been numerous complaints concerning the accuracy of their work using bots an additional right which would enable them to be similarly inaccurate on templates which may be used in a large number of pages. Template errors may be easy to correct, but, unlike template vandalism, there's no guarantee that they're going to be noticed quickly, and while they exist, they can affect a large number of articles. I would not recommend giving M. template editor status at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BMK in not agreeing. The problem with M. is that pretty much all he does is gnomish tinkering that at regular intervals does more harm than good. And this, I believe, is to a large degree because he's disconnected from the actual experience of writing and editing content – it's why so often he can't understand why something he's done is pissing off everyday editors. I think he should serve some time not running bots and not tinkering with templates, but just editing actual articles by hand. Then we'll see. EEng 19:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think EEng's advice is excellent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That goes without saying. EEng 20:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note that since starting this discussion, TheGracefulSlick has racked up 20 edits at yet another terrorism-related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling; yet another WP:POINTy AfD she started.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Pincrete and Drmies have also noted the inaccuracies and misuse of sources so I am not the only one [30][31][32][33]. "I do realize that you are attempting to make me lose my cool, and that you and Huldra are attempting to vote me off the island" is a clear sign that you think this is some sort of of contest or battle and I would ask you to retract such a baseless statement but I doubt you will. Window dressing the article is not helpful, especially when your additions to do not reflect upon the very sources you use. I apologize but I consider that a serious matter and I -- and others -- had to call you out on it several times.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's go back to to that 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. Soon after I created the article in July 2017, it was taken to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson where I presume you found it. It looked like this when you arrived: [34]. Whether you failed to read the sources or thought that the New York Times was lying, you reacted by deleting terrorism related categories from the page [35]. It was not a long page; the basic plot was that there was an arson fire at a Shia community center, a suspect was identified, tried and adjudicated not guilty. About a month after the trial concluded, the German police arrested a dude who was editing ISIS's Amaq News Agency website from Germany. I read the most astonishing story in the New York Times, describing how this ISIS editor was actually fomenting terrorist attacks; and the Malmo arson attack on the Shia mosque/community center was described in great detail. I wrote a BASIC aritcle. You began deleting swaths of solidly-sourced material. Removed the descriptor "Shia" [36] with edit summary "the relevance of this is not established." Removed terrorism categories again [37], this time with edit summary "Which bit of "the accused was acquitted of all charges at trial and the fire was deemed not to be terrorism-related" is difficult to understand?). I replaced them with edit summary "Undid revision 790082120 by Pincrete (talk) the part where the German police verify that this was an ISIS attack. You are verging on WP:DISRUPT]" You removed a sentence reading: " however, the subsequent arrest of an Amaq News Agency operative in Germany demonstrated that the attack was directed by the Islamic State."[38] with edit summary: "Report me .... BLP trumps anything and the source does not say this ... moving other quote". And so it went. I can only assume that you failed to read teh sources on which the article was based. Certainly, it was irresponsible, disruptive edit warring. And it all took place during a July 2017 AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson where you made 17 comments and I made 7. (Note that the July AfD was started by new User: CrispyGlover.) You made a series of similarly disruptive edits during the August 2017 AfD started by TheGraceful Slick Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson, where Slick and I each made 12 edits. Both AfDs closed as Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The organized deletion of information on terrorist attacks is now so bad that editors are being muzzled and threatened just for trying to stop the afd wikicide against coverage of obvious terrorist attacks. I've been threatened just for complaining about whitewashing of terrorism and advocating that any terrorist attack is notable and non-routine and rules for notnews and routine need to be revised to stop disruptive prods and afds Bachcell (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If an administrator were to grow a pair of gonads, enforce policy, and muzzle you, I would hold a parade in her or his honor. Sadly, it will never happen. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried bringing Bachcell's behavior to the community's attention (again) Malik Shabazz but apparently the new diffs and months of others from the prior thread is "not actionable" so I closed it before I could somehow be landed with a block. I'm afraid Gregory's behavior is just going to be left unnoticed as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, it does seem possible that repeatedly dragging editors who disagree with you to ANI could land GracefulSlick or other editors with a block. Some editors might think that such behavior was WP:DISRUPT for WP:POINTy reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Double agree with MS and TGS, if something is an "obvious terrorist attacks", why do editors have such difficulty finding sources that say that? Actually this is an area of WP where editors regularly ignore BLP, PoV and V with impunity, frequently imagining that poor coverage of terrorist articles is somehow magically going to do something to stop these incidents. It ain't I'm afraid. Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment just pointing out that this seems to be a recurring topic at ANI that the community is unable to solve, and one that I suspect will be back here again if this ANI closes without any resolution. If this is the case, the likely next step would be ArbCom, which also has the benefit of having a structured format. I'd suggest to all editors involved that it might be best to come to some sort of agreement on a mutually amicable way to settle this, otherwise I see this headed to a case request sometime in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It further points to the rising conflict that I've been trying to resolve in P&G between WP:NOT#NEWS and articles rushed to creation on current events, which unfortunately the community seems very divided on, making any type of movement to resolve it (either direction) impossible, include clarification of supposed practice into policy & guidelines. That itself is slowly building to a head (this above issue just one extension of it) and it's going to get worse before it gets better. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I've been involved in several non-news related AfDs where the same behavioral concerns occurred. I hate ANI worse than I hate contentious AfDs, so I've never brought them here, but I think there is likely merit on the bludgeoning issue with this complaint that is unrelated to the NOTNEWS issue. I'm not familiar enough with what has transpired since the last ANI to give any thoughts as to an ANI resolution, but I would encourage E.M. Gregory to limit themselves to the minimum necessary comments at an AfD to get their point across. Short of that, unless this ANI closes with a specific resolution (which I don't think will happen), this is headed for an ArbCom case, which is even less fun than ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni and I clashed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation bracelet, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre Sawyer Jr., on the question of when a Christian newspaper or book is primary if used to source Christianity-related article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd actually consider it to be more about when local sources count towards the GNG, but thats a side issue. I didn't try to have you sanctioned either time, and nor do I seek it now because I really don't like the idea of restricting the ability of someone to comment in a discussion. My comment here was simply noting that this is an issue that several editors have brought up, and since we're getting specific, has been discussed at ANI at least five different times.
  Yes, I'm aware of the issue of the sock and that you've never been sanctioned in this regard, but especially after the last ANI closed There is consensus on the editing behaviour of E.M.Gregory in AfD discussions being very concerning, in particular the inability to keep arguments "concise"., I think you would be wise to follow that advice. A long trend of ANIs that close as no consensus or no action but advice to do avoid doing something is, IMO, the definition of an issue the community is unable to solve, and that is the purpose of ArbCom. I'll repeat again that there is no attempt by me to get a sanction or weigh in on the situation since August, but simply to urge everyone here to find some amicable solution, because the next time an issue is raised, I suspect it will be as a case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I do not want to see this go to Arbcom -- too much work for the same result. I propose what was actually a remedy from another ANI thread. From the previous discussion, There is consensus on the editing behaviour of E.M.Gregory in AfD discussions being very concerning, in particular the inability to keep arguments "concise". Despite his promise to address this concern, Gregory has either unknowingly or willfully continued to engage in this behavior. And, considering how he has reacted towards others at AFD and here, treats this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. He should be limited to three comments per AFD for six months and can appeal the restriction after that time. The three comments allow him to !vote, respond to a critique of his !vote, and/or reply to another editor's !vote but it is up to him on how he will distribute his opportunities.

Unfortunately, this does not address his intentional misrepresentation of sources. To me, that should result in a topic ban on terrorism-related articles but I will not propose that at this time. Anyone else may do so if they find it appropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User E.M.Gregory stands accused, repeatedly, on this thread, of misrepresentation of sources, yet no diffs are provided. I am of the opinion someone should look into the behaviour of his accusers. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Diffs have been provided. If you know anything wrongly done by me, you are welcome to bring it to the attention of ANI.Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note that User:TheGracefulSlick is a highly unreliable editor on the topic of terrorism. She was deliberately misleading in her AfD nominaiton of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling (a discussion she BLUDGEONed with 20 comments). In her nomination for deletion TheGraceful Slick states: " This incident was in the news, mostly regional, for about four days because it was called suspected terrorism. However, it appears to have been a monetary dispute." [39]." This Nominating statement was posted on 18 October, and the linked article dated 6 October was from the first round of news coverage. However, by 8 October [40] the AP was reporting that "Israel’s domestic security agency says it has arrested two Palestinians suspected of killing an Israeli man found dead last week, in what it says was a 'terror attack.' " [41], and reports asserting that it was a "monetary dispute" has ceased. This is disingenuous BATTLEGROUND editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Probably not a good idea to accuse me of being disingenuous when it has already been proven you deliberately misrepresented sources on seperate occasions even as experienced editors pointed it out to you several times. I read a source for what it literally said. Perhaps if I did not have to depend on unreliable news sources, such a mistake would not occur.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Err ... perhaps if the news sources are unreliable, you should consider not depending on them? Ravenswing 08:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Policy breaches and disruptive editing by User Graemp

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

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

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

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

The user has a history of over 21,000 edits. Very many consist of inserting individuals' middle names into articles (principally relating to candidates in British elections recent and historical), by cutting and pasting forenames from biographical articles into piped links within other WP articles, adding multiple forenames for non-notable people mentioned within articles, and adding multiple forenames into red links for the potentially notable. Here[42] is an example of the significant effect such edits can have on the appearance of an article.

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

The clear consensus arising from the March 2017 discussion was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately the user has recently resumed disregarding this consensus and returned to his previous habit of inserting middle names into articles wherever he can. This can easily create errors - such as a new red link for someone already articled under their common name[43] (Neil Shields) - or a second red page title for someone already red linked elsewhere under their common name.[44] That these existing pages and links are very easily found by a WP or Google search suggests either that the user is not troubling to research individuals' common names at all before making his edits, or is aware of the common name but wilfully ignoring WP naming conventions. At very best this approach to editing is irresponsible and unprofessional - editors' responsibilities to make checks prior to such edits is set out, for example, within WP:REDYES.

Some of the user's recent edits oppose the consensus position directly - for example re-introducing a title[45], and claiming that a full-name source should override one that establishes commonname[46]. Even where someone has published a book with their common name on the front cover the user reverted an edit because the source somehow does not meet his approval[47].

WP:BLPPRIVACY directs editors not to publish full names of living people except where already "widely published by reliable sources", with a "presumption in favour of privacy" especially for the not notable, because of risk of identity theft. The user has nevertheless introduced full names for non-notable individuals into various pages, where the people concerned are highly likely to be alive and without any evidence of pre-existing wide publication. Here are just a few examples[48][49][50]. In his edit summary the user expresses his view BLPPRIVACY not relevant as these edits are not edits to biographies of living persons - a position that would exempt every non-notable person from this policy (except in other people's bios), since none has by definition a WP biography, directly contrary to both the stated intention of protecting against identity theft and the clear statement in the policy lead that it relates to "adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (the any italicised in the policy article for emphasis).

To 'defend' his full name edits, including those of not notable living people whose full name is most unlikely otherwise to be widely published, the user has repeatedly reverted edits in clear breach of WPP:3RR - just some examples from yesterday: four reverts within several hours here[51][52][53][54], here [55][56][57][58] and here [59][60][61][62]. Other repeated reverts yesterday in breach of WP:3RR are as per his [edit history]. I have not edited these articles further after my third revert, and hence the full names of people within these articles are currently being published by WP.

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

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

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

• The following is a list of questions with answers relating to edits User mapreader has made since the UK politics project discussed the issue of how names should be presented. If he can follow this guidance, we should not encounter any further problems.
• In election tables, should non-linked candidates names be listed in full? Yes. This is the consensus that arose from the UK politics project discussion.
• But what if we know their common name, shouldn't that be what appears instead? No. By putting the name in full we provide the reader with more information, that can not be made available elsewhere on wikipedia.
• But what about if it is possible that a candidates may be alive, does this not contravene wp:blpprivacy? No. BLPprivacy is a policy relating to Biographies of Living People and what we are talking about here has nothing to do with that.
• Should we remove the red links for candidates in election tables? No. These will be important links to preserve for those notable MPs or candidates who are yet to have their page created. For more information see WP:REDYES.
• Should red-linked candidates names be listed in full? Yes, in most cases, as we won't have any evidence through citation of any other correct way to present the name.
• What format should we use in election tables for blue linked candidates? The project consensus was to use common name if known and full name if not known. The clearest indicator of this will come from that individual's biographical article.
• Many biographical articles list the full name rather than a common name. When it comes to their entry in election tables, should we automatically asign their first and last listed names as their common name? No. If we don't know their correct common name, we should not make guesses. It is possible that their second name will be their common name. It is also possible that their second to last name is also part of their family name. If we don't know, leave it in full.
• In what circumstances can we change the name of a biographical article from full name to a common name? Only if there is clear evidence in support of a particular form of the name. This evidence will need to be supported by the citations used in the reference section.
• What if I find acceptable common name evidence elsewhere on the internet, can I change it then? Yes, so long as you use the citations and they are listed in the references section.
• What sort of evidence is acceptable, a single book cover showing the individual's pen name for instance? No. Evidence needs to be more reliable than that. An author's pen name is their pen name and no guarantee of any common name.
• What about if I find evidence that an individual had two different common names, can I just pick one and change the name of the article to that? No. If we can not be certain of any correct common name, we should continue to use the full name in the article title.
• What about by-election articles. When we describe a candidate in the body of the article what form of the name should be used? It is a common style of article writing to use an individual's name in full, on the first occasion they are mentioned in the article and then by shortened forms, usually just the family name, on subsequent mentions. Graemp (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Some administrator input would be very useful here. As you can see from the above, this user does appear to think that he is somehow responsible for writing 'rules' for other editors, despite being happy to ignore WP conventions and consensus himself. My understanding is that BLPPRIVACY applies to all pages, not just biographies, and therefore his third 'answer' above is incorrect. My reading of WP:REDYES is that red links should follow normal WP naming conventions and link to valid article titles, usually Commonname plus appropriate disambiguation, and therefore his fifth 'answer' is also incorrect. His penultimate 'answer' conflicts with the consensus achieved by UK politics wiki project editors in March (itself a response to his disruptive editing) which was that where there is a conflict in sources, a first-last name source takes precedence over a full name source. His final 'answer' conflicts with my understanding of usual WP style which is to refer to people blue-linked to their biographical article by their Commonname on other WP pages (the full name for first reference applies to their bio). Sadly it seems this editor is determined to follow his own rules and revert in breach of 3RR when others don't follow them. MapReader (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Comment The response given above from Graemp is truly astounding and completely tone-deaf. Graemp has written several blatant lies. The consensus reached at the UK Politics WikiProject was:
• 1) Where a candidate's WP:COMMONNAME at the time of an election is known, that should be used in the election box.
• 2) In other cases, any form of the candidate's name which is found in a reliable source may be used. Editors should not presume that a candidate was known by their first name without evidence.
• 3) In all cases, titles should not be used, per WP:HONORIFIC. This includes Mrs/Miss/Ms, Dr/Prof/Rev, Rt Hon, and others.

Graemp chose to participate in that discussion and his arguments were near-unanimously rejected. Graemp above arrogantly listed some questions and answers for other editors to follow so we do "not encounter any further problems" (i.e. so we stop challenging their behaviour). Yet the instructions he gave to other editors were absolutely directly contrary to the consensus. Graemp says "In election tables, should non-linked candidates names be listed in full? Yes. This is the consensus that arose from the UK politics project discussion." But that is a complete lie. The consensus was in fact "Where a candidate's WP:COMMONNAME at the time of an election is known, that should be used in the election box. In other cases, any form of the candidate's name which is found in a reliable source may be used. Editors should not presume that a candidate was known by their first name without evidence." This is a textbook case of WP:NOTLISTENING and WP:NOTHERE. Graemp's complete failure to understand the applicability of WP:BLP project-wide ("BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts") even after all this time is an enormous concern. Given Graemp's long-standing refusal to respect editor consensus and accept policy and consistent pattern of disruptive editing, I believe a lengthy block is now required to prevent further ongoing disruption and to prevent more editor time being wasted. AusLondonder (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As the complainant I didn't feel it was my position to suggest to our Admin what action they might take. But I too found this user's response above somewhat arrogant and patronising to other editors. Like you I remain mystified as to how any sensible person could think that a policy intended to protect people's privacy could possibly apply only to some WP pages and not others, even without the very clear statement in the policy intro. Most editors would see adding middle names pointlessly into articles as "trivial clutter" (to use the exact words of an experienced editor who posted this week on the film wikiproject talk page), rather than a valuable use of anyone's time. Meanwhile the workload in restoring a sensible and readable presentation to many WP UK politics pages is considerable. I appreciate that this isn't a simple easy-to-deal-with case of vandalism or abuse, but this user's long-term mission to introduce as much cruft as possible into every UK politics page is nevertheless a form of insidious damage to our encyclopedia that has had the consequence of leaving many of our politics pages looking ridiculous to the reader. It would be appreciated if an admin could give this topic, posted last Friday, some attention? Thanks in anticipation MapReader (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:TE violations by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat

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

• Current recent repeated edits include : [63][64][65][66][67]

• Similar past edits include [68][69][70]

• Origin of the persistence of installing this edit is seen in the added Note by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat since 12 September 2017 by [71]. They then try and validate this with arguments like this [72], when in fact, they had already added the alleged false cited text themselves! Clearly evidence of both WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. (Worst in reply, they stated to me "Are you even blind?"[73], then go off on another tangent claiming yet another source.[74]

This is very clear evidence of WP:TE - Tendentious editing. Their current active sandbox[75] is seemingly pushing WP:OR exclusively to this narrow subject and promoting themselves as an expert.

The problems has been openly explained thoroughly here [76] and discussion here [77], lastly here[78] or as seen many times in the edit comments. JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat just ignores all of it, and just adds another dubious source or states numbers with further unfounded or wrong assumptions. e.g. With justifications like.[79]

Other past editors have tried to engage with the problems with the size of this star before [80], explaining similar logic and reasoning, so it it not new.

Furthermore, similar recent disruptive star edits include R Apodis[81], UU Aurigae [82] (saying "remove uncited data") or even VV Cephei [83] with disruptive uncited edits like this.[84] or [85]

They also have been involved with a recent WP:3RR investigation[86] with ZaperaWiki44 as explained here.[87], caused the page List of largest stars to need by Primefac page protection under WP:PREFER and has required administration access only. [88]. Just looking at the Revision history of List of largest stars[89] shows the extent of the need for protection. (This action is about to expire.)

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

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

This editor is persisting with disruptive edits in List of largest stars[90][91][92], under which page protection WP:PREFER was required with administration access only[93], then recently lifted. The said "I promise that I will stop my disruptive editing." [94] and were (yet again) advised why their non-consensus edits are problematic. Some form of WP:TBAN is required, else this problem continues or even escalates. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:The most voluminous stars now telling all to f off.--Moxy (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

See this. This should be closed and archived now and an administrator should deal with it quickly and quietly per WP:CHILD. Geez, no one noticed that? John from Idegon (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I left a message on their talk page regarding their editing. I've held off from a block at the moment, but made it clear that if they continued, a block was all but certain. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Editor not here to help the project .as seen here.--Moxy (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw and reverted that earlier. At this point I'm giving them enough rope before blocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Katerina Kolozova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technically yes, but in this case, there could be some good faith applied, perhaps, and advise Kkolozova that their student needs to register for account. Blackmane (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly a compromised account if it's an admin account, and letting someone else have access to your account is no defense to vandalism or other intentionally disruptive behavior. Are you asserting that either's the case here? Ravenswing 08:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

They have been warned not to do so, the student(s) ha(s/ve) created their own account(s), and there is no on-going disruption. So the question is somewhat moot. — fortunavelut luna 08:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

BrightR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, got sidetracked. I've never done this before. Lots of reading. I'm not the primary editor in this dispute, so I am not familiar with the vast history of POV conflict being engaged here. This: [95]] is the one which took out all my edits, and also several discreet edits by Farcaller. The edit reason is also offensive. article: Tulpa Tulpabug (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest closure as a content dispute, off-topic for this board. Or, if we insist on discussing user conduct, I think the discussion should focus on the users pushing suspect sources, not on BrightR's good work keeping such sources out of the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not a content dispute. I feel BrightR is making it look like a content dispute through guiding the conversation. However: Suggest closure with no action taken. I believe that Farcaller has taken a vacation from the wiki due to stress, as he told me he wanted to. And I cannot provide strong evidence of wrongdoing. Tulpabug (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment. While this stems from a content dispute, the initial complaint by Farcaller is: "User:BrightR doesn't want to resolve a dispute in a peaceful way." Farcaller also complains of:

2) "roll[ing] back the edits without any proper discussion done";

3) "they do not want to discuss anything";

4) "The user ignored the rules set by mediator" (at DRN);

5) "ignorance and abuse"; and

6) "in clear violation of the Wikipedia:Five pillars#WP:5P4".

To which complaint user Tulpabug immediately chimed in with "I can confirm this", and an additional complaint that BrightR was trying "to prove all us other editors wrong".

What is here is not a content dispute, but matters of behavior. And it gets deeper. E.g., Farcaller says the "clear violation" of civility was "addressed towards several other editors." Which, on its face, suggests that the issue is about a single misbehaving editor versus all the other editors. But take a closer look at Tulpabug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That account was created two days after the DRN was opened; it appears to be either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. CliffracerX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (involved at the DRN) is odd, and though activated two days before the DRN opened, it seems very similar to Tulpabug, and indeed, even Farcaller. All three of those users are effectively single-user accounts (on Tulpa, the DRN, and here). A closer look is very much in order. And action should be taken: to deter bad behavior. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've got pulled in back in this discussion after being quoted the above statement. As for the original issue we are discussing here, I feel I don't care anymore. I have good faith in that the sources and references that I've provided for the article do have enough credibility to be quoted. I also believe that sources BrightR is using are inappropriate. For one, his quote above saying that "tulpa" and "tulku" are effectively a same thing goes against the primary historical source of the article itself, also "tulku" article has a different definition and is, overall, sourced properly. Still, I don't feel like discussing a neutral point if all my edits are being reverted with no discussion and discussion is sidetracked. I still think that BrightR oversteps his authority in an attempt to enforce their own POV.

As for Tulpabug being a sockpuppet of myself, I won't even discuss that point; while I can confirm that I have discussed the edits with Tulpabug off the wikipedia, I did the same with a bunch of other wiki editors I know. I won't comment on their involvement more than stating that I think it was incorrect and abusive for BrightR to revert simple contextual edits they made to the article in question. Farcaller (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you had truly quit this discussion then you should have said so, struck your complaint(s), and perhaps apologized for wasting everyone's time. (If you're feeling stressed, as your buddy Tulpabug has related, then perhaps you can feel for BrightR, who has been very patiently dealing with your pettifoggery.) As it is, slinking away when the light is shined on you does not get you a pass on your own behavior, or your associate's. You accused another editor of violating incivility, which is itself incivility.

The timing of Tulpabug's appearance (just after the DNR started) and behavior and pov (mirroring your own) certainly suggests sockpuppetry. While I would accept your denial of that – which, curiously, you have not done – your self-admitted communication with Tulpabug establishes a case for meatpuppetry. That (and other points) shows that you are not here with "clean hands", and all of your comments (here, at the DRN, and on Talk) are thereby questionable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was commented on. I was thinking the same thing. My timing of showing up was odd looking. However, I actually showed up a few days before, rather than after the DRN. The claim of sock puppetry is incorrect. However, the claim of meat puppetry actually is not necessarily false. (full disclosure) Some of us shared an offsite chat together, though, I would not call Farcaller's complaining a breach of the canvassing rules. I usually edit anonymously, but it seemed inappropriate as I was invidted to a dispute resolution process.

After having had several days to reflect on this situation, I actually want to retract everything I said about BrightR. I can totally accept that the minor breaches of guidelines were the result of aggravation more than anything else. Sorry. Tulpabug (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It would greatly clarify matters if you would strike through (not delete!) everything you are retracting. And perhaps add a short explanatory note at the top of this discussion so that anyone reviewing this can see at the start how matters now stand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I wasted anyone's time, because I still stand by my claim that BrightR's behavior is incorrect. Yet, as they noted, ANI might not be the best place for this particular dispute (I'm not used to sorting out WP dispute politics).

That said, I think I won't interact with BrightR much outside of the scope of one particular article, and I don't have any incentive to work on said article anymore. I hope we won't get into another edit war soon.

"all of your comments are thereby questionable" I stay behind all the points I made here, on DRN, and Talk pages. While I've been discussing this issue with a wider community, I'm not going to take the blame for other people (and definitely not brigading). If you look through the talk page, you can see that I did everything possible to discuss all the raised concerns in a calm and distinct manner, although later BrightR accused me of stalling things due to spreading discussion to numerous sections. I don't believe that it's correct behavior on BrightR side, but that point was already discussed as part of DRN.

"which, curiously, you have not done". I need to note that explicitly? Yes, I don't own Tulpabug's account. Farcaller (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. When there is reasonable showing of a possible problem you do need to address it explicitly. Otherwise there is a distinct sense of trying to avoid the point, which is (at the least) in indication of an unwillingness to resolve the matter.

I do not see that you "did everything possible" to resolve this matter. While the talk page interactions seem (to me at least) fairly calm, the real issue was in the article edit-warring. And here you missed a really important option: just stop. Yes, it is really difficult to let stand what you think are bad edits (and for as little as I know, perhaps they really were "bad" edits), but there is pretty much nothing done in article space that can't be undone. Reverting others' edits just raises the temperature, impairing discussion and delaying resolution. As to "spreading discussion to numerous sections", that is a common problem (even with experienced editors), so BrightR's request that you not do that is quite reasonable (not "incorrect"). And you are pretty thin-skinned to take offense at that.

However, what brings me here is, first, your initial statement that "User:BrightR doesn't want to resolve a dispute in a peaceful way." I find it hard to believe that you actually know what BrightR (or any other editor) really wants. That is your interpretation of his behavior. Likewise with "ignorance and abuse" and "clear violation": you provided no basis for these characterizations. (And likewise for Tulpabug's imputation of trying to "prove all us other editors wrong".) Your assertion of bad behavior or hurt feelings carries very little weight. You need to show (as BrightR kindly demonstrated) actual statements or behavior.

Second, some of your statements here are, well, let's just call them unfortunate. (E.g.: accusing others of a "clear violation" of civility without providing evidence of same, which is itself uncivil.) And of course there is the apparent meatpuppetry, though perhaps this has been mitigated.

You say you are "not used" to this. Yes, that is evident. Perhaps the best outcome for all of this is for you to recognize your inexperience in Wikipedia process and standards, and be less quick to assume you have the right end of the stick. And certainly not blame others for your own missteps.

Interacting with BrightR might actually be good, but only if you are less confrontational, and willing to try embracing what he is trying to tell you. Alternately, you might look for mentoring on how to resolve these kinds of matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User RAF910

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

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

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

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

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=next&oldid=741118844

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time".--RAF910 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=741209444

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time" RAF910|talk]]) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742239645

"Who knows, like a Pokémon Go player, maybe you just got caught or carried away in the moment and you don't realize that you've crossed the line."--RAF910|talk 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742344735

my error, a repeat

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=792120156

… "CuriousMind01 has a habit of endlessly arguing his position, Wikilawyering and ignoring consensus that opposes his position. So, it will most likely be reverted again." RAF910|talk 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"As predicted Curiousmind is ignoring consensus and reverted the changes to the Bushmaster XM15 page, as well as the SIG MCX. He clearly does not care what any of us think, and is pretending that this discussion where an overwhelming majority of his fellow editors disagree with him is meaningless. And as usual, he is trying to intimidate anyone who opposes him by accusing them "personal attack and harassment." " RAF910 Revision as of 11:55, 24 July 2017

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=804529223

"CuriousMind01 attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page

My fellow editors CuriousMind01 is at it again this time at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page, where he is attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus and make the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms meaningless. So that he can add "Criminal use" sections to as many firearm pages as he can get away with. I encourage my fellow editor to comment there" --RAF910|talk) 16:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&diff=next&oldid=804562757

"*OPPOSE CuriousMind01 is a tenacious edit warrior obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to firearm articles despite massive opposition. About two months ago he lost a discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms by a 10 to 1 margin. Unfortunately, he has a win at all cost mentality. So, now in typical fashion he's ignoring consensus, forum shopping, wikilawyering, and gaming the system. He even attempted to unilaterally make this change himself, because he believes that silence equals consensus. He will most likely accuse me of personal attacks and harassment again for daring oppose him and pointing at his questionable behavior, a normal intimidation tactic of his. I will inform my fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms members that he attempting to override consensus and make the Project meaningless." --RAF910 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Another editor comment to the above:

Please don't inject personality-based criticism and supposition/prediction; it's not helpful... See WP:ASPERSIONS. …. SMcCandlish 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Drmies, could you please see recheck, I showed the text below the above links, which I consider rudeness and false aspersions: like obsession, edit warring, ignoring consensus, wikilayering,forum shopping, etc. The statements are all in the past 13 months. Please allow me several days to respond to the comments below. Many result from levels of consensus and local consensus does not override community consensus. (sorry, add the text lost the numbering) Thank you.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh...I forgot to mention that he is incredibly argumentative and constantly Wikilawyering. See above statement.--RAF910 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• RAF, this is helpful (though please use fewer paragraphs), but we need more, from more editors, to issue a block per NOTHERE or whatever. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• CuriousMinds has battled this issue of including criminal use many times, refusing to accept consensus. Like this RfC result (which had quite a few participants) [96], then again in another discussion at the same article [97]. Continually forum shopping. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 23 October

• If you review User:CuriousMind01 edit history, he seems obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms, Automotive, and other articles. As other editors have noted, he is a very aggressive editor and will endlessly argue his position against overwhelming consensus. I agree with RAF, that he is ignoring consensus and WP:Forum shopping. He is also WP:edit-warring on the Bushmaster XM15 article, with these edits [98][99][100]. He is also Wikilawyering with these edits [101][102], where he basically claims that his fellow editors cannot make changes to the Bushmaster XM15 article. In essence, that he is right and everybody else is wrong. He has launched personal attack with this edit [103]. My experience with User:CuriousMind01 left such a bad taste in my mouth that I stopped editing. Please see "Advice" discussion [104] at User talk:AmaryllisGardener. I also recommend that he be indefinitely blocked.--Limpscash (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies in brief response: I think the comments above may originate from users not knowing some Wikipedia rules.

Like the Recent Example cited above: WikiProjects Firearm project took an internal vote to remove criminal use from gun articles then amended their advice page. I voted no as a violation of WP:NPOV. Then users RAF910 and Limpscash twice tried to delete community/RFC consensus, criminal use text from 2 articles 1, 2, which I and another editor twice restored, trying to explain in edit summaries and project that "local consensus" is not binding.

Having seen wikiprojects incorrectly try to impose their criteria on articles, I thought it would be helpful to add an additional criteria educational example to the Wikiproject "such as" examples, not a rule change. Using proper WP steps, talk page, be bold, RFC, commenters explained my example was not needed, because wikiproject rules already exist, like:

• “WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles.”
• "Advice pages: "projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope,". "and that other editors..get no say.."because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay."
• [[Local consensus]] "among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ...WikiProject advice pages,...have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wait--if all else fails you claim the others don't know policy? BTW all y'all REALLY need to learn how to do proper indentation and paragraphing--these sections are clear as mud, esp. when editors start citing other editors. Anyway, I wish y'all had pinged me when that proposal came up (and RAF, I see 8 to 2, not 10 to 1--ansh666 was also an "oppose", and I see only 8 "support"s, but that's by the by. Again, anyway, CuriousMind, "Local consensus" etc, sure, but if you're the only one adding some section that others oppose, you're still guilty of editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a far more than local consensus. Wikipedia articles about things generally do not center on, or even touch much on, the externalities of their use or abuse. Anmccaff (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:WyndingHeadland

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that an AN3 was filed with the result of "No violation" (see here). It looks like the user hasn't edited Highland Clearances since October 19th, but has continued to participate on the article's talk page since then (through the 23rd of October). I can see that their responses aren't entirely in relation to the article itself. I do see something going on about "filibuster" and statements like "The user has shown himself unable to engage in consensus creation without indulging in vast changes", and "Until any user can respond without the filibuster POV rants that demand complete response or nothing at all the user is unlikely to reach consensus". I suggest that both of you cease editing the article until some sort of agreement is made on the article's talk page. So long as the discussion stays civil and it doesn't spill onto the article with edit warring, I don't see a reason to take action right now; it would do no good and only exacerbate the problem, not resolve it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent WP:OR/WP:V issues with SerM12345

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

SerM12345 has a persistent habit of adding entries to List of terrorist incidents in October 2017 where the sources do not support their inclusion. Recent examples are: [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]. This user was warned on their user talk page repeatedly by myself, DrKay, DeFacto, Doug Weller, and MonsterHunter32. They never have communicated with any other users on talk pages and has only once commented on an article talk page to ask why the article was protected ([110]).

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

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

He hasn't edited for a couple of days, so we'll need to wait to see what happens when he returns to editing. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that seems to be a common theme... Gianluigi02 and Krissmethod... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: editing has resumed but still no communication. They edited just a few minutes ago so I'd give them a bit longer I guess but I'm not optimistic EvergreenFir (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent use of fansites at snooker player articles

Background

The problem

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

The sites

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

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

Examples of anomalies

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

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

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

Ongoing discussions and existing consensus

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

Ongoing problems

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

• October 12
• October 19
• October 23
• [111]
• [112]
• [113]
• [114]

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then I still recommend blacklisting. NB the rules for this are strict. We're told: There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (Actually I don't understand the second half of that: something in the sentence seems to have got garbled.) What's clear is that this is not something to be done merely because you expect that not doing it will, in the medium/long term, be more of a pain; so only those websites that have already been persistently and deleteriously linked to are fair game. It could be that blacklisting these will lead to more linking to other, similarly worthless websites; IFF that happens, the latter can be added to the blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Support blacklisting. We seem unanimous that they should not be cited. Andrewa (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Support blacklisting the four sites listed. Betty Logan (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It's great that we have enthusiastic contributors here, but (as a person entirely unfamiliar with snooker) the page seems to have an excessive amount of detail. Can't some of this detail be on a Wiki other than Wikipedia? Either one run by a fansite, or Wikia, or a theoretical en.wikialmanac.org? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  Your point is completely valid but not really central to this issue. Something definitely needs to be done about the endless stream of match reports in the article and there is a separate discussion about that at Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan#Layout Changes and Suggestion 15/04/2017 if you want to make your viewpoint heard. Betty Logan (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  Especially if some of this excessive amount of detail is unsourced or sourced only from less-than-reliable sources, and some of it is even contrary to the detail in reliable sources, which seems to be the case here. Wikipedia would IMO be definitely improved by removal of all of this unsourced and/or poorly sourced detail, which would be entirely consistent with policy and anyone can do it. Wikipedia would then IMO be probably improved by the further removal of the remaining gappy data that is adequately sourced but incomplete and likely to remain so. Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Global range block?

This user is a recurring Iranian cross-wiki IP hopper targeting the articles about e.g. Violet Brown, Nabi Tajima and Chiyo Miyako. IP addresses include (but there may be hundreds of them):

• 2.191.142.142
• 2.191.152.98
• 2.191.179.135
• 2.191.182.117
• 2.191.137.123
• 2.191.138.136
• 2.191.169.249

This has been going on for a long time. Would it be possible to block the range 2.191.0.0/24 globally? Disembodied Soul (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

See meta:Global blocks. Requests may be made at meta:SRG. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

(nac) 2.191.0.0/24 wouldn't catch any of the IPs listed. 2.191.0.0/16 would, but is huge. Gricehead (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I did a short range block on 2.191.128.0/17. Can't do anything about a global range block, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good temporary solution (due to the fact that the block duration is very short); I avoid blocks of wide ranges like this due to the potential and likelihood for collateral damage to occur - especially given the information I'm getting back from the WHOIS. Have there been edits made globally that call for a global block to be placed? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Joppa Chong and Center for Family and Human Rights

User:Joppa Chong acts disruptively on Center for Family and Human Rights. In 2015 they were banned for 24 hours due to edit warring on that page over mentioning that the Southern Poverty Law Center describes the article subject as a hate group ([115]). And more recently they've been edit-warring to remove references to the catholic church from the page (discussion here). And they've also said "... as the promotion of an LGBT agenda within Wikipedia by some editors is an open secret"[116] which indicates that they're inherently biassed on this topic, in favor of anti-LGBT hate groups.

Blocking them for 24 hours didn't fix the disruptive behavior before. Would a topic ban be appropriate? --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That block was a while ago. Maybe another would jog their memory. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The last edit that Joppa Chong made to Center for Family and Human Rights was on October 12, about two weeks ago. He's been discussing the dispute on the article's talk page ever since (albeit the discussion looks to have drifted from being about the content and toward being about each other). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

But now [117]. That said I'm not sure this single edit is a worry considering that the edit warring seems to have died down since earlier in the month. As said, there seems to be discussion on the article talk page. Not without problems, but I'm not sure it's the level that would need any sort of administrative attention. It seems to be that it would instead be helpful to use some form of WP:Dispute resolution, especially since I'm only seeing 2 editors involved in it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible socks

Lots of newbies editing at Wiener Nationals. They may be completely unrelated or some kind of college class project, but it seems very odd and all 5 have similar patterns. I watch the dog recent changes, and don't think I've seen this article in the past year, then boom. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly - What "similar patterns" are you referring to exactly? Have you opened an SPI? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. It's probably a class. Several of the accounts are also editing Frederick County Public Schools (Maryland). If there are problems, just contact the one most likely to be the teacher (my rule of thumb is that whoever uses the best grammar is usually the teacher). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate is probably right and I'm not going to file an SPI without more evidence. The patterns are a) all of them suddenly began editing the same article at about the same time, b) all made similar edit summaries and c) all the edits are written in the same style. I do think now that they're probably a class, but I wanted a second opinion because the only SPI I've been involved with was very similar, and that one was proven to be sockpuppeting. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Museum of Indian Culture

Persistent promotional edits by multiple new registered accounts. Oversight for promotional content, COI and possible use of multiple accounts will be appreciated. Thanks. JNW (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

JNW - Sure, I'll take a look. Also, if you need anything suppressed by an Oversighter, you should not ask publicly. Contact the Oversight team privately (see the directions at the top of the page using the link I gave you) for those matters. I've redacted part of your discussion message to remove information from public viewing and your privacy. I'll take care of that portion of your request, and look into the disruption as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

JNW - We should open an SPI regarding the newly registered accounts. Can you do this for me? Or do you need assistance with doing so? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah. I was not literally referring to the oversight team, merely asking for more attention to the article. I’m traveling a lot, and am not inclined to open an SPI report with my phone. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Long term abuse from Department of Veterans Affairs IP addresses

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

---

Requesting a range block that includes:

• 152.130.15.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 152.130.15.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These and possibly other IP addresses that are tied to the Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington DC have been used since 2010 for a campaign of unimaginatively partisan edits to US politics related articles. The edits consistently cherry pick sources from highly biased sources such as Breitbart, the National Review, RT.com, the Washington Times, and Fox News. See

• [118]
• [119]
• [120]
• [121]
• [122]
• [123]...

A half dozen warnings have been given at 152.130.15.30 related to the recent NPOV issues, and another dozen or so at 152.130.15.14 which were primarily over personal attacks and copyrights.

Talk page discussions have not helped. The person has shown no indication they grasp what the issues are, or that, while Fox News may be minimally reliable for some kinds of general news, they are well recognized as hopelessly biased with regard to US politics. See

• Talk:Uranium One#Concerning the Clinton affair and Breitbart as a reference
• Talk:2017 Special Counsel investigation#Shift to Podesta Group
• Talk:Frederica Wilson#Empty barrel
• Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#More allegations of vote tampering.

It's great to have editors from a range of points of view collaborate on articles to find some kind of balance, but this level of tone-deaf POV pushing is simply disruptive. The talk page discussions with this person are not productive, and their edits are reverted entirely more than 9 times out of ten. Their attitude after months to years of warnings and discussion, has not improved at all and they don't seem capable or willing to understand what neutrality is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A WHOIS comes back with an address pool with a very wide range (152.132.0.0/15, 152.128.0.0/14, 152.124.0.0/14, or 152.124.0.0 - 152.133.255.255 for those who aren't familiar with CIDR notation). Looking at the contribution history for 152.130.15.0/24 comes back with edits to both the mainspace and the talk space (see here). I'm not against blocking these IP addresses (or a smaller sub-range of these IP addresses, such as 152.130.15.0/24), but I want to get input from others first. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This might be one of those situations where it would be better to first contact the VA and see if this can be handled internally. The Feds do (at least in theory) have guidelines covering acceptable use of their computers and internet connections. I am not sanguine that a range block would be effective in this case unless it were quite expansive as Oshwa notes. And there is potential here for significant collateral damage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - Not a bad idea at all. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

[Restored comment accidentally deleted . -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)]

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

This needs to be investigated, not simply closed. I have found two examples of this user inserting unsourced negative claims about a living person into talkpage space; at the very least this user needs a strong warning about the BLP policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:61.69.198.231 persistently adding uncited material

Resolved

61.69.198.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently adding uncited material to BLPs such as height. e.g. [124], [125], [126] and other uncited info [127], [128], date of birth [129]. despite giving a warning this behavior has persisted. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 36 hours for persistent addition of unreferenced content. The fact that the edits are primarily made to BLPs added to the decision to block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Congressional IP subject of Gizmodo Article

143.231.249.138 is the subject of a recent Gizmodo article found here. Essentially user is editing pages to deliver a message through their contribution page. User has prior history of vandalism and blocks. I don't really know if this constitutes vandalism, just thought I'd bring it to attention. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 03:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see vandalism here (yet). The edits are mostly minor punctuation and copy editing. Editing pages with certian titles is not actionable, but given past history it is worth watching, especially as it is a shared IP and others might use publicity to perform their own operations. Pinguinn 🐧 04:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Amusingly clever, actually. EEng 04:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 04:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Kind of like the joke about the fortune cookie that says "Help! I'm trapped in a fortune cookie factory!" EEng 04:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

[130] and [131] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Alan King lives! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

I have recently been accused of "vandalizing" the page Media in Albuquerque, New Mexico in which my most recent edit mostly updated the websites of a few local stations. However this was reverted on the claim that it was "unsourced" although the links connect to each stations website as I had made certain before posting the edit. I had an earlier accusation regarding the network affiliation of KTVS-LD but after reverting the page back to my earlier edit I was able to provide a link to the Facebook page of the sister station that made the announcement and it has not been changed since. If it is possible can an administrator review my edit of Media in Albuquerque, New Mexico to find any evidence of vandalism or disruptive editing? I am trying to prevent my account from being blocked and right now I do not want to make any more edits since it could lead to another accusation resulting in my account being blocked. I have been editing here since 2006 and had not had any vandalism accusations before. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Rj24 (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Consider using the talk page to talk about your proposed edits first. --Tarage (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you considered talking to the users directly and asking them why they feel that your edits are vandalism? You should also consider starting a discussion on the article's talk page and pinging the users so that the concerns can be discussed... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, you did not leave a notice on anyone's user talk page notifying them of this discussion. I assume that this discussion involves the warning left by Jeff G.; I left a notice on their talk page for you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you for notifying me. @Rj24: additions of content like this edit of yours need to be supported by verifiable references from reliable sources. Most of your edits do not include such references, either in the text or the edit summary. Your edits have been described as vandalism before by @Mvcg66b3r: in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Tag team vandals? and your user talk page, and yet your behavior in this regard has continued. When will it stop?   — Jeff G. ツ 10:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jeff G.: Given that the edit you just linked to shows no sign of meeting Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, I suggest that you review WP:VANDALISM and then, if you cannot find a way in which the edit fits that definition, retract the accusation. That someone accused him of vandalism in the past does not make your case, particularly when that accusation was bounced off of the noticeboard. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree with Nat, and will go further with this; Rj24 absolutely did not vandalize this article and both Jeff G. and Mvcg66b3r clearly did not read through and compare the edits at all to the individual television station articles and ABQ TV template, where it's clearly sourced what has changed (QVC+ has changed their name to QVC2, for instance, and KTVS indeed carries Light TV on two channels, which they have confirmed themselves). I have restored all of Rj24's changes as good-faith and completely easily sourceable through the information we have through the station's websites and their own articles, and in addition removed brandings and websites from the article in each of the grids as duplicative promotional information already found on individual station articles (per WP:LINKFARM). There was no disruptive editing here, and I advise both Jeff and Mvcg to moderate what their personal definition of "vandalism" is; it's not what I found here.

Also taking into mind that Rj24 has been the major editor to the article going back years (their first edit here being in 2007), I assume they're a native of the ABQ market and definitely know much more about their market than either Jeff or Mvcg, so calling their edits suddenly "vandalism" after ten years of editing without incident looks petty and bad faith. Let our editors in their own markets show their proven knowledge, please. Nate • (chatter) 23:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User Aggiefan47

The assumption of good faith is becoming harder and harder to maintain when it comes to User:Aggiefan47. Their edits have always been erratic, but until recently, some of them were good contributions to WP:BASEBALL. The other edits are reverted not long after they are made, usually by myself, @Yankees10:, @Spanneraol:, @Muboshgu:, @EricEnfermero:, and others. Aggiefan47 often changes their pattern of edits, removing something from pages one day and then adding it to others the next day. They have been asked to explain themselves in the past, and usually delete the talk page posts not long after they're made. They've been warned several times in the past, and those too are deleted. On October 23, Aggiefan47 removed all sources from Coco Crisp, Jackie Bradley Jr., and Mookie Betts without explanation. On the 25th, they removed all sourcing from Heinie Zimmerman, Peanuts Lowrey, Dwight Smith Jr., Todd Hollandsworth, Chris Coghlan, and Jorge Soler. Interspersed in those are several edits to player pages that removed some sourcing. Each of the edits is unexplained ("edited player biography" isn't an explanation for why sourcing was removed).

In my opinion, Aggiefan47 has become a thorn in the side of WP:BASEBALL (and Wikipedia as a whole) that can no longer be ignored or tolerated. Their useful edits are not frequent enough to warrant them being able to contribute to the project, and their unwillingness to explain themselves leads me to believe that they are no longer here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to that, other than that I don't believe Aggiefan47 has ever engaged in talk page discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a huge percentage of the edits don't affect the article output (taking out extra spaces from the infobox fields, putting extra spaces back in the infobox fields, changing the BDA template from an uppercase B to lowercase, moving the DOB/place of birth fields up or down, etc), but the editor also has a tendency to introduce mistakes, so the constant pointless tinkering creates headaches when we're trying to review the edits for accuracy. Here's a recent example similar to what User:Trut-h-urts_man describes. The user edited Will Middlebrooks on August 22. Among other things, the user added a piped link to run batted in. Only a few weeks later, he is taking out that RBI piped link on the same article. Depending on how bored this editor gets, this stuff could go on endlessly if we let it. He is definitely not a talk page guy; he has reached out to me once via email to tell me to stop reverting his edits, but even after I explained the issues, he didn't alter his editing behavior. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no recent attempts to engage this user on their talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 22:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, that is because the user routinely removes messages from other users who are attempting to engage. Look at the talk page history.

Apologies. I really should know better and should have checked that. Sorry I'm at work stuck on another late night due to production failure and on Wiki to keep me awake. Canterbury Tail talk 00:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I concur that Aggies' behaviour is problematic and I have great sympathy with the editors who have been trying to reason with a completely uncommunicative editor for so long. Unless anyone objects, I will apply an indef block to Aggies for the sole purpose of getting their attention. I will lift the block immediately upon Aggies agreeing to start using talk pages and to meaningfully collaborate with other editors. A Train^talk 23:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, A Train. I've about had it with this user after a few years of this nonsense.--Yankees10 23:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Aggiefan has been given 30 ccs of Real Talk. Let's see what happens. A Train^talk 23:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A Train - that sounds like a reasonable and appropriate way to stress the importance of collaboration to the user. Can I ask what the plan would be if they later resume their disruptive edits? Is this a "three strikes, you're out" situation of gradually increasing blocks or is this their "last chance"? I would prefer the latter, mostly because I don't presently believe they are willing to collaborate or adhere to the guidelines already in place. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is why I suggested an ANI report this morning at AIV: now there's a lot of sunshine on this problem. If Aggies continues to be completely uncommunicative after this remedy has been attempted, you will have taken every reasonable step. You guys can hit me up in that event and I'll apply an indef block, with the community's support. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. A Train^talk 23:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summaries

Someone using IP 88.98.223.34 is removing text from Alex Reid (fighter) while threatening legal action if it's restored. I don't have an opinion about the material being removed. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for the legal threats. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick update, after the block User:Reidernater reappeared making similar threats. They were blocked and the page semi-protected by Oshwah. Per WP:DOLT, someone seems to be making sure everything there is well sourced and complies with BLP. (Eventually reverting to a version before the mysterious IPs appeared.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Given the IP's history of edits shows they were editing the same article a month ago, and given that the IP is static [132], I think we can expect this IP to try again. I'll add it to my watchlist. I hope others do as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thejoebloggsblog behaviour at Port Adelaide Football Club

This is a bit two fold, but it is basically a combination of @Thejoebloggsblog: edit warring and acting in an uncivil manner towards another user. I'm also going to ping @TripleRoryFan: and @Jono52795: as they have been involved too.

This issue started in September when Thejoebloggsblog removed content added by Jono52795 without an edit summary. There was then a few days of back and forth [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138]. I came across the issue when Thejoebloggsblog used the edit summary "All necessary information included. No need for a crows fan in 'TripleRoryFan' to start an edit war" (to give a bit of a back story for those who may not know, the Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club are rivals in the league). I felt this was an unnecessary edit summary and not assuming WP:good faith, so I left a comment on Thejoebloggsblog's talk page about assuming good faith. Jono52795 started a discussion at Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club#SANFL presence post AFL entry, which TripleRoryFan joined in but Thejoebloggsblog did not.

Fast forward to yesterday, Thejoebloggsblog removed the content again [139] without an edit summary or any discussion at the talk page. There were then a few attempts to try and get Thejoebloggsblog to discuss the issue at the talk page [140], [141] (with notification at user talk page about edit warring), [142] (with talkback template at user talk page). Attempts to get Thejoebloggsblog to discuss were answered with edit summaries questioning TripleRoryFan and my motives and once again not assuming good faith towards TripleRoryFan with the edit summary "reversing edit of known Crows fan who is starting an edit war. He should be blocked from editing page". Since TripleRoryFan pinged Thejoebloggsblog at the talkpage and used a talkback on the user talkpage, Thejoebloggsblog has continued to edit the section, so I'd say it's pretty safe to say Thejoebloggsblog has ignored this and is not willing to engage in any discussion to try and reach a resolution.

Apart from the blatant edit warring by Thejoebloggsblog by reverting with either no edit summary or baseless edit summaries, and refusing to engage in any sort of discussion, I thought I'd report the issue here rather than Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring due to the edit summaries towards TripleRoryFan. I feel that these are in violation of WP:Civil as there has been zero evidence that TripleRoryFan has ulterior motives and I don't think I've ever seen them edit in a way that could be construed as vandalism, in addition, they have even done a good job of creating a season page for Port Adelaide at 2017 Port Adelaide Football Club season so it doesn't make sense they'd vandalise the main page. I feel Thejoebloggsblog edit summaries border on WP:personal attack towards TripleRoryFan and are nonsensical, because supporting an opposition team does not mean an editor is going to vandalise/disrupt club pages. In addition, the assertion that I "only ever revert [Thejoebloggsblog] edits" is a bit of a stretch, yes I've had disagreements with this user in the past, but nothing more than I've had with any other user and have actually managed to reach a resolution with other users as they've been willing to have an open discussion.

Thejoebloggsblog has been a long term user on Wikipedia, and I feel that this sort of behaviour should not be done by a long-term user. There's been long time issues whereby when something is challenged in relation to the Port Adelaide Football Club that Thejoebloggsblog doesn't agree with, there is nearly never a resolution as Thejoebloggsblog either refuses to engage in any conversation or the discussion starts to become illogical (Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club#Logo is a classic example). It has become nearly impossible for other editors to try and improve the page and no one is suggesting that Thejoebloggsblog can't disagree that an edit by another user is not actually an improvement, but in doing so, there can't be just a revert with no explanation or a failure to engage in discussion. I don't know how many times myself and other users have tried to get Thejoebloggsblog to engage in discussion in the past, but considering this behaviour is still going on for someone who has been on Wikipedia for nearly seven years, I feel that Administrators involvement is needed. Flickerd (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This has been a long-term problem and it's disappointing to see that it's still going on. The most concerning part for me is his tendency to edit war to the threshold of 3RR, see that there is a clear consensus against him and instead of at least accepting that, he will try to make the same edits again a few months down the track in the hope that no one will notice. It's a frustrating situation because Thejoebloggsblog is I think sincere in really wanting to improve the coverage of PAFC-related articles, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is necessary to be able to work with, rather than against, fellow editors. As can be seen by his talk page or a couple of the other trips to various noticeboards this is unfortunately not a one off situation. What should be done about it though? I'm not sure to be honest. I was thinking about suggesting a 1RR restriction but I'm not sure that would achieve anything because I think you'd still have the same behaviour where contentious or outright rejected edits try to get snuck in months later. Jenks24 (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The way he's going about it is quite frustrating. I got involved when I saw he'd deleted a chunk of sourced prose without an explanation and wanted to know why he did it, but it felt like the only reasoning he ever gave to me was directed at the fact I'm a Crows fan, which I think is a bit ridiculous given I've made an effort to improve articles about players from rival teams and, as you said, created an article specifically about Port Adelaide (though it's still a very low quality article). As far as I can tell he still hasn't given a reason why he prefers one revision over another, which is all I wanted him to do to begin with. TripleRoryFan (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Apollo The Logician again

Apollo The Logician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician

A bunch of sockpuppets, many of whom appear to be Apollo The Logician sockpuppets, have been hounding User:Mabuska. Some of them, like User:197.250.8.162, appear to be proxies.[143][144] A few proxy blocks would seem to be in order. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I confirmed that single IP address is a proxy so have blocked it. I think this issue requires an admin with substantially more time than I have at the moment, to investigate. Additionally, note that Apollo the Logician is known to lie about use of sockpuppets. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Eyes on Catalonia, please

Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has apparently declared independence. It's already semi-protected, but there's a lot of contentious editing going on.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has full protected for a week. As you might expect as a direct consequence, Talk:Catalonia has lit up with protected edit requests, ranging from appropriate spelling and grammar issues to outright POV pushing. All admins may need to chip in on the talk page, as I don't think the traffic is going to die down any time soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

See also List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Independence referendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

All added to my watchlist, SarekOfVulcan. A Train^talk 17:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You might want to add Carles Puigdemont as well. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

They've now created a content-fork at Catalan Republic (2017) and appear to have moved on to that as the dedicated edit-war zone. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. If only there was one battle site to contend with, I predict a weekend of turmoil on these pages. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Very tempted to redirect and full protect that in an WP:IAR sort of way, but I'm not sure I want to deal with... dammit. fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Or not. Guess I'm more chicken than I used to be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Doing my best to hold back the Catalonia is independent related edits, but it's quite difficult. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is certainly not policy, but my inclination would be to leave Catalan Republic (2017) (which has almost no incoming links, given that it was only just created) unprotected and direct all the nationalists on both sides there to duke it out, to keep the instability out of those articles to which people may actually be coming for information. We did something similar with Guy Fawkes/Gunpowder Plot, in creating Gunpowder Plot in popular culture and pointing anyone wanting to rant about V For Vendetta and Anonymous there, and it worked fairly well. ‑ Iridescent 17:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I tagged this article as WP:CSD#A10 earlier today (just after it was created and immediately before my news feed lit up with the independence declaration in earnest), but now I'm with Iridescent - while I personally wish the nationalists would just go to Wikinews or start a blog, I think they're going to have to have somewhere to slug it out (although the article has already been semi-protected). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) That's an attractive suggestion. To really keep the POV warriors busy and away from established articles, we should lift the prohibition on 3RR on that one article as well. (It might sound like I'm sarcastically snarking at Iri, but I'm actually semi-serious. This philosophy has a lot of potential in numerous places, the more I think about it. Maybe a noticeboard where you can make accusations without evidence, can edit war over archiving the thread, say "fuck" as often as you want, and don't have to notify anyone, but which can never result in any actual action being taken? WP:AN/Honeypot? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite an anarchistic solution, isn't it? I guess the five pillars just get ground down to dust there is the process? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, time to resurrect the POUM then  :) — fortunavelut luna 18:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"This is a Catalonian/ Spanish* hat and I am prepared to die wearing it"
* delete as appropriate

I've always assume that this was part of the rationale for the existence of the REFDESKS.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

And 2017 Catalonia declaration of independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam the idea of honeypot pages intentionally designed to keep the editwarriors off pages with high readership and instead tie them up warring over a little-viewed page isn't a new one by any means. Michael Jackson's health and appearance, Personal relationships of Michael Jackson and Cultural impact of Michael Jackson—created before his death to keep all the squabbling out of a highly visible and legally sensitive BLP and instead confined to a bunch of pages no members of the public would ever read—are probably the canonical examples, along with Criticism of Microsoft. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I at least claim credit for the WP:AN/Honeypot idea? Although a way to attract more of them would be to name it WP:AN/Very important arguments that matter TOO MUCH to be solved at ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

During these coming uncertain hours & days, I think we should work with the premise that Catalonia is still a part of Spain, when dealing with these incoming edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's the only sane option, and we need to stress it's simply because in a fluid dispute like this, the status quo should remain, not because we are all Mariano Rajoy fanboys. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What we need to keep in mind here is that Spain will end up taking control of the physical infrastructure of Catalonia, but the Catalans, at least the fraction of them who support the move to become independent will end up setting up an alternative government that only exists on Cyberspace. Spain will try to crack down on that alternative cyber government and Wikipedia will then find itself in the crossfire of that Cyberwar. Count Iblis (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Michael Bay filmography GMG^talk 19:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a a good time to re-read Neuromancer. A Train^talk 19:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Heck isn't it close to the time of The Awakening? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I was actually thinking that this could turn into an NPOV trainwreck lasting for weeks or longer. Perhaps we should request the community (here) or via Arbcom, grant a temporary authorization for uninvolved admins to impose editing restrictions including 1RR on articles relating to Catalonia and its purported secession from Spain. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I like that idea. We should start a formal discussion for community sanctions over on WP:AN. A good discussion would take a week, but I don't think this is going to be resolved any sooner than that... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I support this move. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion started at WP:AN#Proposing community sanctions on Catalan independence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Interestingly, it appears to me that the Spanish Wikipedia and Catalan Wikipedia articles, while busy and with more than their fair share of reverts, are not even semi-protected (with 2-3 exceptions I eventually found). Not sure if that's due to the size of the respective editing communities, the relative power admins may or may not have in all 3 communities, a relatively higher maturity level in their community, it's just more fun to argue in English, or what. But it's interesting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC) although to be fair, they both have the equivalent article to Catalonia protected. But articles about the vote, the claimed republic, the referendum... those don't seem to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

List of involved pages

• 2017 Catalonia declaration of independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andorra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Carles Puigdemont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Catalan Republic (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Catalan Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Catalan independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Els Segadors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• History of Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Independence referendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Oriol Junqueras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  There are even more listed at the ongoing ITN discussion. Most have issues that for now prevent them from being linked on the main page. On a side note; it seems like we have a few too many articles dealing with essentially the same subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems par for the course here - creating new content (especially on an important topic) is fun, retrospectively fixing sourcing and POV pushing on somebody else's work is less so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like creating a new country is even more fun (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure I agree with full protection here. ExtConf, perhaps, but I don't see the disruption that justifies shutting down all editing, as we don't usually do that as a preventative measure. It is overkill. We have hot topics all the time and allow editors to edit them with either semi or extprot in place, I would suggest the same here. Policy seems to back me on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Just going to obliviously pop in here with a somewhat related question. On October 27, Catalonia declared independence and it was added to that day's article's events list. That was removed by User:Rlbarton, who might be in the right but definitely should have chosen a less contentious edit summary than "Removed not notable event." It has since been restored via a pending edit I approved. I can't say for sure if it belongs and I definitely don't want to ask at any of these battleground talk pages. (And that said, October 27 looks like another candidate for semiprotection because of this.) Stay? Go? CityOfSilver 22:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought it said California declared independence, and said to myself, "Wow, the fallout from Trump never ends!" EEng 23:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: If I wanted to write one of those fake news Facebook articles about California seceding, what notes would I have to hit? Hammer and sickle on the flag, one-party Communist rule, all military members either get deported or go in the stocks to get pelted with tomatoes... CityOfSilver 23:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that's in Valencia, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just factually describe the Bear Flag Revolt (and its flag) without bothering to mention that it was 170 years ago rather than now. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not an "Arbitrary break". It's a logical expression of the democratic rights of the Catalan peoples! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC) well, some of them anyway...

This is why these pages should let me add gifs. I need to add the one of Fred Armisen as the old-timey drummer on SNL. Ba dum PSSH. CityOfSilver 23:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

User Shmayo

• Shmayo (talk · contribs · logs)

The user has been disruptively editing Syriac Christian-related articles for a while now. Back in January, he boldly (unanimously) redirected Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East), an article about the ethno-religious community, to Syriac Orthodox Church, the church body. Next, he removed sourced content about how the church leaders viewed of themselves and other ethnic and religious groups (commenting "Superfluous and wrong section"). He continued to revert, and again (this time commenting "Rv POV. Quotes reduntant and irrelevant in history-section, "identity" of specific people irrelevant and not verifiable"). He seems to be following the Assyrian nationalist view that all Syriac groups are Assyrians (POV). This is made clear by the user's intent to merge the article, which has been discussed before and rejected. The user calls the article a fork, which obviously is not the case. I warned him, twice. He removed reliably sourced content which is directly discussing the article Terms for Syriac Christians (very interestingly, with the comment "Discuss first. Wrong section. POV." Do I need to stress that all of my content at said articles follow Wikipedia guidelines of RS and NPOV? I am here to contribute, not remove. And he calls my edits "controversial"... --Zoupan 23:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, back in January, I wrote on the talk page several times. Of course, I should have directly notified involved users, which I stated even back then. Zoupan, I have been the one wanting to discuss these issues. But I have not got any response regarding the particular edits. This version is not neutral, while this one is. But again, you have not commented the actual edits on the talk page, even though I have been asking some pretty basic stuff. You are only refering to the "removal of sourced content", while you are doing the same thing. The difference is that my version is neutral, while you are cherry picking. As for the quotes, they are irrelevant to the history section and belongs to the articles discussing the terms. But even there, quotes favoring both identites, were deleted by Monochrome Monitor, for being redundant. If you can't agree that your edits are controversial, then you have not been following the discussions at Talk:Assyrian people, were special guidelines have been set up. You are even using sources whose reliability have been questioned there. You should take some time reading through the consensus there first. Shmayo (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Here I am repeating the same questions regarding your edits again. Shmayo (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Here Zoupan is removing a link to the Assyrian people page for no reason, linking it to ACOE. What is your obsession with that? Shmayo (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You have not made much of a discussion. You claim that it is a fork, when I have made my stance clear already last year. Your questions have little or nothing to do with the actual dispute on the talk page. As for the massacres, sources explicitly identify victims as Nestorians=members of the ACOE.--Zoupan 01:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Could I borrow a couple eyeballs on the Snopes page?

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

---

this dif, complete with its accusations of edit-warring and threats of warnings, and a few backwards tell the whole story. I'd ask at AN3, but there really does seem to be something else going on, @Leitmotiv: has reverted something as uncited when it is followed by a cite just this side of plagiarism. Anmccaff (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Widely" is wishy washy language that sounds "pro". Regardless it isn't necessary to the article. And it isn't cited. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Widely is accurate – a sky-is-blue fact for a website visited more than 3 million times per week. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::From page 285 of American Carnival, the work which is cited immediately following the material you [i.e. Leitmotiv] removed: "the most widely known resource for validating or debunking rumors...."

As I said, there really does seem to be something else going on here. Anmccaff (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I see we have a conspiracy theorist here. No, I simply reverted your unnecessary edit of "widely". I reverted and that's it. To proactively add that Snopes.com is "widely" viewed accomplishes nothing except leading the reader into thinking that that is a benefit or a positive attribute as if to validate its authority. Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral. If your goal is to show how much its viewed, then it was already accomplished by the number of views in the last line of the lede. That also means you're being redundant, another reason to revert. It may be obvious as the "sky is blue" but the obvious doesn't need to be stated twice, nor perhaps at all. Neutrality is the name of the game here, we don't need to lead the reader. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the source's "the most widely known X" does not imply "a widely known X", which has some unknown absolute scale unlike the source's comparative. I use snopes, but from my friends' and relatives' reactions when I do, I'd say it's not really "widely known" to the broader audience. So maybe that's what's up there. Changing it to quote the source more closely ("the most widely known") would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There is an element of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL in "widely", but Snopes is the best known urban legends site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That's one of my main reasons for deleting "widely". Between editors, I get that it's the biggest debunker of urban myths, but that doesn't change the fact that it's leading the viewer as one would lead a witness in a court of law. It's also redundant and therefore unnecessary. Wish washy through and through as far as I'm concerned. The article doesn't benefit from having it and it does just fine without it. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not call other editors conspiracy theorists. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 06:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I agree it is bad form to insinuate that there "really does seem to be something else going on here", suggesting another editor has an ulterior motive, just as much as suggesting one is a conspiracy theorist. And hence the joke over something so mundane. Sometimes you have to point this stuff out though when the original editor does not assume good faith and the reason for my light-hearted joke. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be missed that my original edit was to remove the words "widely-used" when everyone here seems to be arguing over "widely known". Why we are arguing over widely known is unknown to me, because what I edited out was widely used. Still, it's a weasel word when Wikipedia has higher standards of being neutral even if a citation supports it. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Nate Speed IP sock

Can an available administrator please block IP user 193.169.144.42 (contributions here) and also consider semi-protecting Turner Broadcasting System? The IP is an IP sock of banned user Nate Speed, and is continuing a series of edits that another blocked Nate Speed IP sock (who has since been blocked) was doing a few hours ago. The semi-protection is necessary because Speed constantly jumps from IP to IP to evade blocks. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, User:NinjaRobotPirate, for the speedy response -- you always seem to be on top of these things! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if he pops up again, which is probably pretty likely, unfortunately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Akocsg: Ethnic/nationalistic POV pushing, edit warring and IP-hopping

• Akocsg (talk · contribs) and block log
• Blocked on German Wikipedia [145] (Ethno-POV-Account on a mission)

This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.

• I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
  • WP:BATTLEGROUND and misrepresentation of sources[146][147]
  • Removing sourced text and replace it with his own POV[148]
  • POV and labeling his edit as minor[149][150]
  • Removing any non-Turkic info which are based on the sources[151][152][153]
  • Disruptive edits like[154]
• The recent issues:
  • Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[155] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[156][157][158]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[159][160] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[161][162][163][164][165][166] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[167]
  • Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[168] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[169] And this one.[170]

It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)