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

Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn

The user User:Flyer22 Reborn has been harassing me for quite a while, accusing me of sockpuppetry with zero evidence for it, harassment for removal of outdated primary sourced material here, and most recently the accusation that I followed flyer onto the Human brain article(which is actually beyond crazy to me....really? I see an article with a high importance rating that obviously seems very bad, and I got to edit it...and all of a sudden I did something wrong) here. This is getting to be problematic, and seems to me like WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Furthermore Flyer22's harassment would not be an issue if it were not for his/her/it's attitude and demeanor, which is quite disturbing. Petergstrom (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please not that I notified Flyer here, and he/she/it removed it. The proper procedure has been followed.Petergstrom (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Update. This edit demonstrates an edit based solely of vindictive anger...why remove well sourced material that was missing from this article. The content is necessary and relevant function of the brain, and for no reason it was removed. No doubt some silly claim will be thrown of POV pushing

You are a reckless, POV-pushing editor.

Petergstrom (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You should both use the article's talk page, for a start. El_C 22:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Two editors agreed that the function section was terrible, and she just flat out ignored that. That is actually pretty good evidence of vindictive harassment behaviorPetergstrom (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Happened to spot the ongoing edit war at human brain during change patrol, and a request for the page to be protected is pending. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

From my standpoint, it looks like a content dispute that became heated. One article talk page at a time: present your positions on the material. Myself, I'm willing to offer my opinion. El_C 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes the content dispute is relevant, but what I am tying to solve here is the history of harassment.Petergstrom (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it rising to that level. You carry the burden of proof to display a history of harassment. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And, more or less as per WP:BURDEN, it is your obligation and no one else's to provide the evidence to support your contentions. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom's accusations of harassment are unfounded. After indicating that Petergstrom is a sock because his edits are very similar to a previous editor, I left the matter alone because I do not yet have enough evidence to prove my case. As many editors on this site know, I do not make a sock accusation unless I am certain that the editor is a sock. And I'm usually correct about sock matters. After that, Petergstrom started popping up at articles that I significantly edit. The first one was the Psychopathy article, where Petergstrom engaged in reckless removals and falsely asserted that the topic is WP:Fringe. See here and keep scrolling down for what I mean. His fighting with Penbat was ridiculous, and Literaturegeek had to come in to point out how Petergstrom was wrong. After that, Petergstrom popped up at the Vegetarianism article, another article that I significantly edit, and he started making problematic edits to that article as well. He had also made a very poor edit to the Veganism article, which is yet another article that I edit. See here. It took Alexbrn weighing in on the matter. After that, Petergstrom showed up at the Insomnia article. While I do not heavily edit the Insomnia article, it is on my watchlist and I saw that Petergstrom has made reckless edits there, removing important material. I noted the WP:Preserve policy to him. See here. He indicated that he would continue to violate that policy. Jytdog helped with what Petergstrom recklessly removed. In that same discussion, I noted that I am working on the Human brain article, despite thinking to myself that Petergstrom might follow me to that article and edit recklessly there as well. And sure enough, he did. So I left a note on his talk page about WP:Hounding, stating that I would bring the matter here to WP:ANI if he continued to follow me. That's when he started making silly claims about how no one here cares about me, that I'm going crazy, and that he would bring the matter to WP:ANI too. See here. And so here we are.

Petergstrom has repeatedly made asinine edits to our medical articles, as currently seen on his talk page, and I do not believe he understands our sourcing policies well enough to be editing at all. Like Alexbrn stated, there are WP:Competence issues regarding this editor.

On a side note: I have dealt with many stalkers before, and some have been dealt with here at WP:ANI. So I know what I am talking about when it comes to stalking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 reborn overestimates her importance. Firstly, the psychopathy edits were justified, and many stand even now. The removal of primary material, duplicated content and the things still stands. Secondly, the veganism and vegetarian article edits were not poor, in fact we came to a conclusion that inconsistent policies were being applied, probably driven by WP:ADVOCACY. Third, the insomnia edits were justified, and Jytdog did not add any of the poor material back-material removed from the pathophysiology section, such as science daily, and multi decade old partially relevant primary studies. He added menstrual cycle risk factors as a cause. Lastly, Flyer22 overestimates his/her/it's importance. Just because some people edit similar articles, it does not indicate stalking or harassment. His/Her/Its behavior indicates stalking and harassment. Quite frankly the whole thing seems really ridiculous to me. The pure mental gymnastic being don't on Flyer22's part. It is like Flyer is the center of the whole dang universe. To the point where a multi week old remark made by Flyer, a remark which I barely skimmed over, is believed by flyer to be influencing heavily my editing now. It is just plain not true. A top importance article, on a wikiproject that I frequently edit, that is low quality is something I want to edit, regardless of who edits it. Petergstrom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Overestimates my importance? Nah, I don't think so. But if anyone thoroughly examines what I've pointed to regarding you, they should see that you continuously engage reckless behavior, especially by disregarding the WP:Preserve policy. It's easy to see that you take removal of primary sources to the extreme. You also edit in ways that are clearly POV-motivated. Your WP:Edit warring and trying to WP:OWN articles is also tiresome. There is no advocacy going on at the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, unless it's your advocacy. The Veganism article was mostly written by SlimVirgin, and she knows what she's doing. As for following me, do not insult my or others' intelligence by stating that you are randomly appearing at articles that I significantly edit. We both know that it's not true. The Human brain matter was certainly no coincidence. You were bitter that I highlighted your poor editing. You clearly stalked me to the Human brain article.

So I am stating it right now: If I see you pop up at yet another article that I significantly edit (like the Vagina article, for example), I will be starting a thread here specifically about your WP:Hounding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And given how we feel about each other, there is no logical reason for you to show up and start editing an article that I told you that am I working on. Unless, of course, that reason is to cause me distress (which WP:Hounding forbids). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Show me some talk page discussion where changes are explained, or when they are not. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing? That's the thing about posting here (if you're lucky enough to get someone to listen), you have to do the legwork, or it doesn't work for neither of you. El_C 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I pointed to talk page discussions above. In the Psychopathy discussions, for example, there are invalid claims of WP:Fringe. In the Vegetarianism discussion, there is indication that Petergstrom does not have a good grasp on sourcing issues. In that discussion, I also pointed to where he had misrepresented a source at the Veganism article. At the Insomnia talk page, I pointed out that he had recklessly removed relevant material. Jytdog restored some of it with better sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already commented at Talk:Psychopathy, Talk:Vegetarianism and Talk:Human brain. El_C 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstom, stop calling Flyer22 "he/she/it". I shouldn't have to explain why calling a person "it" is demeaning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So far as I can see, he only did that in the first post, and has since then been correctly referring to her as "she". John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Still quite inappropriate and ideally would be struck. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It was done in this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. Some of these were additions to existing edits, but I don't care that much. Changing your post so that it adds "it" as a pronoun to refer to someone is pretty obnoxious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that that is needlessly inflammatory. If there's doubt, use s/he. El_C 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer they. It's more formal when in doubt. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows users to report their gender in their preferences. A editor's gender is available by using (or simply checking in preview) the {{gender}} template and is shown on hover with Navigastion Popups. The fact that Flyer22 has declared her gendrer this way and mentions it in her user space ("I am female and was born in Florida.") makes Petergstrom's "he/she/it" jab that much more grating. Rebbing 01:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, they. You ask for evidence of harassment, and I gave it in the first post, if that is not sufficient "legwork" I am compiling more. The psychopathy discussion of fringe, was not supported by recent secondary sources, so yes it was an incorrect claim. The edits, however, were good. The removal of outdated crappy sources, and duplicates, were justified and still stand today. The veganism article, nothing was misrepresented. That would imply malicious and intentionally manipulating something to support a point-which was not done. I used "vegan population" instead of "vegan population in hong kong and india"(or some region like that). The rest of the dozens of edits were totally justified and still stand. The insomnia article is a different matter. Jytdog added NOTHING back with better sourcing, he wrote something COMPLETELY NEW. Not in the pathophysiology section, where I removed piles of garbage-in the CAUSE section, where he added a sentence that menopause may be associated with insomnia. Now onto the WP:OWN. If Flyers statement above on the vagina wikipedia page is anything, it is evidence of s/he attempting to WP:OWN a page. Flyer22 still has this mentality that everything I do is dictated by her actions-that is plain wrong. S/he needs to understand, that his/her impact on my life in nearly zero. Until today, I barely gave him/her a thought(except for the sock puppet accusation, which was quite rude). The bottomline is, that the following

1. sock puppetry accusations-WP:NPA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.
2. unnecessary removal-Unnecessary to remove a multi decade old, primary source? WP:MEDRS
3. incredibly self centered behavior-Borderline fanaticism, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN
4. removal of relevant well sourced material-Vindictive behavior, WP:CIVIL

Are behaviors that don't seem to follow wiki policy on behavior. Together the accusations constitute some form of harassment, Petergstrom (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The only NPA mention is 1st link, which doesn't work for me. El_C 01:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with you removing material is that you never keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. Often, what you remove can be easily supported by tertiary and/or secondary sources. When you remove content like that, valuable content is lost. It is not the usual case that editors go searching through an article's edit history to see what was removed. Therefore, valuable content is commonly lost with removals like yours. I explained this to you at the Insomnia talk page.

You did misrepresent data at the Veganism article. Whether or not the misrepresentation was intentional, I explained how you did so at the Vegetarianism talk page.

I am not trying to WP:OWN any articles. I am trying to keep you from editing them recklessly. And I do not like to be followed to articles by editors who currently have a tempestuous relationship with me. See the distress part of WP:Hounding. I wanted to edit the Human brain article in peace. It is clearly a main article that I am focusing on. And yet you somehow thought it would be good to focus on it too? It makes no sense for you to pop up at the Vagina article either, especially since that article is put together quite well and will be nominated for WP:GA status soon enough. The only reason you would have for popping up at that article is because I pointed it out above and made it clear to you that I would not tolerate you following me to articles I am significantly working on.

I wish that I didn't have to continuously deal with people stalking me, especially after they've felt disgruntled because of some argument. But it is something I often have to deal with because of my stance on following rules like WP:NPOV accurately, and because the articles I edit tend to be contentious, and because I have busted so many socks. Yes, quite a few socks stalk me, whether as IPs or as new accounts. This is not paranoia on my part, as such stalkers or socks tend to claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Editor Interaction Analyser is very useful here. Here you can see that the two editors have mutually edited 29 articles, and in practically all - 26 - cases Flyer22 Reborn has edited the article first. These include some very obscure articles. I can only assume from this data that Petergstrom (who let's not forget has only 1,495 articlespace edits in total) is indeed stalking Flyer22 Reborn to articles she has edited, and this needs to stop - NOW. Therefore (a) I suggest a one-way interaction ban (i.e. that Petergstrom cannot edit articles that Flyer22 Reborn has edited, including talk pages), and (b) Petergstrom may be subject to immediate blocking by any administrator if he should again follow her to an unrelated article. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sweet, sweet legwork. I'm referring to Black Kite, with whom I tend to agree. 26 of 29 is, indeed, quite a disconcerting ratio(!). El_C 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow that is just ridiculous. I have edited hundreds of articles in neuroscience, psychology, and popular media. I like the walking dead. I like game of thrones. I'm interested in psychology, and neuroscience-particularly in the influence that prenatal hormones has on gendered behavior. I have edited many many articles in neuroscience and psychiatry area, particularly mood disorders, monoamines, and there is bound to be overlap, given the extent to which she edits. The fact that we have edited the same 29 articles(many of which he/she made only one or two edits a long time ago, that I would not have known about, and don't care about) does not indicate stalking. The fact that he/she has been on WP for years before me is also an explanation. An editor, who hangs out around a lot of the science/social science articles, and over a couple of years has made over a hundred thousand edits, is bound to have overlap with an editor with 1400 edits highly focused on the science/social science section. Petergstrom (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• That is indeed a possibility (if it had not been, an administrator may have blocked you already). I am simply pointing out that following Flyer22 Reborn to any further pages that you have not previously edited may be looked upon very dimly indeed. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) I kind of have to agree with Petergstrom about the nature of the "interactions" here. It looks to me at least 13 of the articles listed are ones where the time difference between the two editors is over a year. If he were really stalking Flyer22Reborn, it would be really easy to spend a lot less work checking her edit history and making staling edits to articles she had edited more recently. Having said that, Petergstrom, you've already been advised about using "he/she" and told that Flyer is, in fact, a female. Try not to fall into the same problem so frequently, OK? I imagine Lassie got really fed up with that blasted Timmy brat for falling in the well as often as he apparently did, too, and repeating that mistake doesn't help your cause at all. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If the edits were months or years ago and then you show up recently, that can make sense. The question, then, is how closely to the actual edits overlap. El_C 01:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I stalking Jytdog (talk · contribs) here? Perhaps I am notoriously stalking Doc James (talk · contribs) too? If this tool is at all EVEN AN INDICATOR of harassment behavior, then I have literally stalked every prominent WP editor in the sciences area of WP, to an even more severe extent than my terribly atrocious stalking of flyer22 reborn. Ridiculous. I am really disappointed in WP right now. If this is what passes as "legwork".....this is sad. If you take note of this, and don't even comment on the actual evidence I presented, I have no idea what this board is forPetergstrom (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We are still investigating. Best keep it relaxed as you can and avoid characterizations like "poor poor flyer22 reborn." El_C 01:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Petergstrom is showing up to articles that I significantly edit as well. Does the combination of editing the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles really seem like a coincidence? The focus on these articles came after my objections to Petergstrom's editing. And this is especially the case for the Human brain article. And now Petergstrom is citing me not wanting him to follow me to articles, including the Vagina article, as some indication of WP:OWN. I've noted above the issues with following an editor you have a tempestuous relationship with to articles. And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also made it clear that I've been through this many times.

If Petergstrom shows up at more articles I significantly edit (like the Vagina article), including articles that I have brought to WP:GA status, will that be a coincidence too? I think not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How soon after the dispute started picking up momentum did he show up at those articles? El_C 01:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

He waits a bit, like a week or two or so. I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me. But the following is clear to me either way. After I addressed him on his talk page about editing with a previous account, I knew that it would not be long before he started showing up to articles I have a significant interest in. After I pointed out that I was working on the Human brain article, I knew it would not be long before he started editing it. The predictability was easy because I've been through this type of thing countless times before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's be careful about basing conclusions about this editor's conduct upon what you have experienced with entirely different persons. Unless the person you suspect Petergstrom of being a sock of is one of those stalkers, your previous experiences really have no useful predictive power for this individual, and it's unfair to saddle him with a presumption of bad faith on that basis alone.

That said, there's some pretty compelling evidence here, considering his showing up at articles you have edited consistently after you have. But it's still all a little circumstantial; all of the articles I've seen mentioned here are pretty major articles and the fact that you edited them first could simply be a product of you having been on the project much longer. I come from a biopsychology background myself, for example and have edited most of those articles myself, if memory serves. So we need to parse this a little more cleanly. You say that Petergstrom has shown up on more than one occasion at certain articles about a week or two after engaging with you elsewhere. How many of these instances involve him undoing your work or otherwise putting himself in a position to engage with you directly, and has there even been a time where he was doing so on multiple articles concurrently? I'm highly suspicious here and I'm looking for the smoking gun that will let me support a 1-way IBAN, but I just need a little more. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Are you actually taking Flyer22's allegations(with no actual evidence) seriously, while blatantly ignoring the harassment she has posed, with her sock puppet allegation, and now this allegation? A user, with 240,000 edits, in the english wiki of 2 million articles, is going to have edited some major pages before a newer editor with 1400 edits, concentrated in the biopsychology, neuroscience, health area etc etc. I don't know how many times I have to say this:'I do not care about what flyer22 edits, or what she thinks, but I do care about being harassed. The only time where I have given her a second of thought, is due to her ridiculous allegations, which quite frankly, are annoying as hell. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions.Petergstrom (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think anyone questions necessarily the problematic nature of some of the more recent edits, Flyer22Reborn, just indicating that some of the "interactions" with over a year lag time between them might not necessarily count for much. And I think that if there were broadened interactions hereafter, that would definitely be very credible evidence. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John Carter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this statement "And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval." is an attempt at being obnoxious, and not a reflection of your own thought process-something that would be very, very, very disturbing. The edits to the human brain article occurred after I went to the article in hopes of finding a quality, complete section, discussing the functions of the brain. I hoped to find the immediate functions, as well as from an evolutionary perspective. Instead I found the current sad section. The edits to the vegan and vegetarian articles were both after googling them to fact check a meme I was(no kidding) curious about. This is really getting to a ridiculous point. Flyer22 needs to reign in her behavior, which I clearly demonstrated above violates multiple wiki policies. Petergstrom (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, speaking strictly for myself, I don't find much obnoxious in the comment at all. It would certainly be not unreasonable for a comparatively new editor (you've been here since October?) to try to edit in such a way as to generate negative reaction if such was required from senior editors. Kind of an informal "mentoring," maybe. There might be better ways to do it, admittedly, but I think I have seen a few other editors here do the same sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I began editing the vegan article on the 16th of january, long after the (regrettable) first encounter I had with Flyer22 on the psychopathy article at the beginning of december, after joining in late october, after spending most of november hanging around the PED/Adaptogen/MDD/CFS area. Petergstrom (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your explanations are the similar to others claiming that they weren't stalking. In a short of amount of time, you showed up at the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles. No matter what you state, that is not a coincidence. And if you show up at more, I will have even more evidence of your stalking. As for my supposed violations, you do not understand the rules well; so I don't put much stock into your assertions of having violated the rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You're only three days apart with the first one though; as for the second, that was quite a bit of (seemingly-pertinent) content you removed with your first edit... El_C 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, your reply is meant for Petergstrom, right? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you cant accept the fact that psychopathy, edits, along with ASPD edits were due to the fact that I am interested in psychiatry(as evidenced by my hundreds of edits in that area), and that the veganism/vegetarian edits(to the cardiovascular effects of the diets nonetheless...hmmmmm what does that sound like? Stalking or perhaps the editing of an editor interested in that area of science....hmmmmm) were due to the finding of very biased statements of benefits, then I would have doubts about your WP:COMPETENCE, in particular the way you place such an importance of yourself in other peoples decision making----you have to understand that you aren't that important. I literally never gave you a second thought, after skimming over whatever you said to me. Petergstrom (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The title of this thread is "Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn", and yet, so far, what this thread shows is stalking by you. It has yet to show that I have been stalking or harassing you. So your understanding of the WP:Competence essay is also flawed. Follow me to more articles I am working on, and there will be a thread here on you in the future. Mostly likely, the near future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't make me refer both of you to WP:DR, because I would do it. I am that bleeping crazy! El_C 02:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, conflict resolution relies on the flexibility of the persons involved in the conflict-if Flyer22's self importance refuses to be flexible, no amount of conflict resolution would help. Petergstrom (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But it's fast becoming your only hope. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No it has not shown any "stalking by me", it has shown nothing. I have, however, demonstrated the violating of multiple wiki policies by you. Petergstrom (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me give a more in depth example. Sepi333 and I edit the same obscure pages-due to overlapping interests, such as Dopaminergic pathways, motivation, Reward system etc etc. However, given that he has a healthy ego, he understands that this is not "stalking", but is rather an overlap of interests. However, he does throw out accusations of sock puppetry ("because he is frequently right" hurr durr durr), or stalking, because he has a healthy sense of ego. Petergstrom (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this has to do with it fast becoming your only hope. You've been repeatedly asked to indent correctly here. El_C 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread. Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here. Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know how to feel...if anyone wants to know what its like to be laughing, disgusted and annoyed at the same time...hmu. Let's break this down

• Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread.

• Clear from what? Clear from the mental gymnastics done by you, and your grandiose ego that just needs a stalker to feel good?

• Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

• I wasn't aware it was over, but if it is, it seems that you might stop harassing me now

• And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here.

• You are not wrong, you don't explicitly say it. However your behavior, does as I have pointed out many times.

• Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too.

• This is not the self importance I am talking about. You are overestimating your impact on others. Way. Too. Much.

• I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me

• This screams to me the words "delusional", "obsessive", "paranoid", "grandiose". If you think anyone actually cares THAT much about you, your edits, and what you think of them, that is disturbing. No after I first interacted with you, I did not spend 6 hours straight thinking about you, reading your edit history, compiling a profile, in my room in my basement with tin foil over the windows, and a triple padlocked steel door. No, I did not spend the next week sitting in that room, with a whiteboard, and yarn linking edits and wikipages, thinking about the most effective strategy for subverting, and obfuscating. I did not set up thousands of dollars of computers, calculating my sinister plot, waiting to strike-waiting for the moment when....wait for it....I COULD DISRUPT SOME RANDOM EDITORS WIKIEDITING *maniacal laughter ensues*. Hell, I didn't even give you a second thought after skimming over whatever it was you wrote.Petergstrom (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet more nonsense and personal attacks from you. Stating that you should accept that others find me important to this site is because of your constant need to state how unimportant you find me to be. Your talk page response about the hounding matter and your above commentary shows just how obsessed you are with stating how unimportant I supposedly am. And such comments could be categorized as coming from a place of insecurity or inferiority regarding your own edits. Some might even state that they come from a place of jealousy. And if they understand psychology like I do, they just might be right. Your comments also indicate that you are indeed the past editor I believe you to be. No matter. I've stated what I need to state. You have been warned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Trolling and harassment (both of which Flyer22 has been a victim of) of editors doesn't take hours to plan, it takes minutes. Less if you've done it before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It cannot be that easy to do what you do. All I want, is for your behavior to stop. For your reckless accusations to stop. For you to understand that, no, I don't care about you, BUT I DO CARE ABOUT BEING HARASSED.' Petergstrom (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: That is not what she indicated when she said "he waits in order to diver attention from having followed me". The belief that someone, a troll nonetheless, would take a week to avoid detection in their trolling, is crazy.Petergstrom (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I can quite emphatically state that that notion is not "crazy". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So you are telling me, NeilN, that you have met people...real human beings...that seriously have nothing better in their lives to do, than to single out a random editor of wikipedia pages, and to make disruptive edits to the pages, but doing so very slowly, and very secretively in an attempt to troll/stalk/harass them. That is sad. I enjoy editing wikipedia. I enjoy editing pages I have interest in. My edit history is evidence that I am here to edit, and until today, none of my editing was AT ALL influenced by Flyer22. However, her accusations of me being a sockpupper(unsubstantiated, which I have brought up many times, but has been ignored) as well as the unsubstantiated claims that I follow Flyer to articles, are annoying, and need to stop. If the admins agree that accusations of sock puppetry and harassment by flyer are ok, then until the annoyance outweighs the good of WP, I can just ignore it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have witnessed the behavior you're describing more than once. I've even seen someone put significant effort into making a credible back-story so he could say wide-eyed: "But I'm obviously not a troll! Just look at my {comments,posts,edits}! I can't believe anyone would actually have nothing better to do with his life than to scheme against someone on the Internet!" Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rebbing:, Really?? this was just a "backstory", so that I could get to my real intent of trolling? I read hundreds of papers so that I could "troll"? Really??? Really???? I cant even believe wikipedia right now. This is actually one of the saddest things...a website I had so much respect for....Really???? Really? There is not a a single SHRED, of evidence that suggests I give two damns about what Flyer edits or thinks. But I give real, tangible, credible evidence of harassment and it gets blown off? Really? I can't even express who ridiculous the whole thing is getting.Petergstrom (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You misread my comment: I did not say you were a troll or that your contribution history was a sham. I merely voiced my observation—in rebuttal to your skepticism—that many have gone to extraordinary lengths to exact petty revenge. Please stifle your outrage; it is not adding any light to this situation. Rebbing 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As can I. It doesn't even take any effort: one could flip through an editor's week-old contributions, watchlist an article with the intent of editing it the next time it pops up, or bookmark the page in a date folder. Trolls are anything but lazy. Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not an admin, although I've played with one on tv. One of the most main points between Wikipedia editors is to help make everyone's experience enjoyable, and not to try to make it less enjoyable. The recent edit, screaming the words, is pretty offensive, and probably should be walked back. Flyer22 Reborn is important to the site, and in some areas, very important. This is fact, not her boasting. So please, Petergrstrom, maybe rethink the pressure of defending your case if it goes into name calling to that extent. Wikipedia is a polite place, although I have been impolite to a couple of grandiose self-important complete azzwipe editors fine gentlemen of the realm. Let's make everyone's experience here a little better and wind-down some of this stuff before it flips into the really nasty get-up-and-go. Peace, love, and singing stuff about cats or sunrise's or something. Randy Kryn 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well in one of my first encounters with a fine gentle(wo)man of the realm, I had to bold the point because nobody seemed to get it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Best we tone down the accusatory language and just see what can be worked out one article talk page at a time. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the behaviour of either editor here has been stellar in any sense of the word. The "policy violations" are numerous on both sides; the multiple accusations of sockpuppetry but no diffs (not here at least) to link Petergstrom to any other editor by Flyer22reborn (ASPERSIONS) and the near-constant accusations of quite serious behavioural (not bad behaviour, but, the issues of self-aggrandizement, delusions, etc) problems from Petergstrom (NPA, CIVIL). This is cause enough for civility blocks to be handed out, though if I'm being direct, I am far more concerned with the near abusive nature of some of Peter's comments than I am with Flyer's sockpuppetry accusations. No more "you're mental" style comments, Peter, you've made quite enough of them. I am mildly surprised you haven't received at least a warning for them. The stalking claims, Flyer, are both difficult to prove and evidence is circumstantial at best; Peter makes a good point regarding the editor interaction anaylzer, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. You need to look at the pages concerned, the times of editing, a log of the page history, and individual edits themselves. The individual edit themselves are the best indicator for stalking because they alone form the basis of a pattern. The return claims of harassment by Peter are relatively unsubstantiated beyond referring to the concurrent stalking claim by Flyer. Other than that, I see zero harassment going in the direction of Peter. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions, there is a simple solution for this, just go do something productive and forget Flyer22 until or unless further issues arise. This thread is rapidly generating more heat than light. There is, however, no simple resolution for any competency issues that may exist and I profer no opinion on that point because ·I have limited competency myself on the topic areas of medicine, the human body and its functions, and psychology. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I just want to point out that Flyer22 Reborn has indeed been very accurate in their detection of sockpuppetry. No one is perfect, of course, but Flyer22 has an extremely good batting average. I think that they perhaps might have waited to make an accusation until they had more evidence, but, given their record, their suspicions should afforded some weight, given the behavior of Petergstrom as described in this thread, especially the Editor Interaction Analyser data pointed out by Black Kite. [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So I've read above Beyond My Ken. My personal stance on an issue such as this is; if you don't have evidence, don't make accusations. I personally don't afford 'suspicions' any weight without a reason to do so. That reason doesn't have to be proof of sockpuppetry per se, but, it does have to be something more than a flat accusation. I agree, however, on the topic of Peter's behaviour being uncollaborative and uncivil. As for the EIA, as I said above, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. If a new editor and an old editor hold similar interests and edit within the same topic area they will overlap. Yes, there is a significant amount of overlap and yes, Flyer has been first to edit 26/29 pages. Of those however only 10 have less than one months time separating her and his edit, and of those all three of the pages he was first to edit are included; Gender inequality, gender inequality in the U.S. and Antisocial personality disorder. Now, basically that means that he's followed her to 7 out of 10 pages, and she's followed him to the other 3 - note; I do not mean followed as in stalked, but, as in came there after. So either he's seeking out pages she hasn't edited in months by going through her contributions history, or, alternatively, he's just happened across them at a later date. I'm going to AGF and say he's not sitting around wading through Flyer's contributions for hours just to make her miserable. If this is actually what's happening, then that's simply pitiful ... I have other adjectives for it as well, but, NPA/CIVIL. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum; I should add, that the EIA is useful in stalking/hounding cases for raising red flags and directing a person where to look and perhaps identify obvious patterns. In this instance, however, I've found nothing unusual even outside of the medicine/human anatomy/human pyschology topic areas. I should also add that this has also come to my mind as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, without addressing everything that you have stated since I feel that I have stated enough in this thread (both above and below), I am taking the time to note that it is usually the case that I do have evidence, but it may be that the evidence is not strong enough. WP:CheckUser wouldn't work in this case since the previous account is stale. It is not unusual for me to wait until I have more evidence. Like many editors have done, including administrators, I gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. When he denied it and started focusing on my block log (mischaracterizing it), I moved on, knowing full well that he would likely start to appear at articles that I significantly edit because of that sockpuppet inquiry on his talk page. I know that you likely feel that I should not have addressed the sock matter at all, but there have been cases where addressing a sock about his or her previous account resulted in the sock acknowledging that they are a sock. This includes cases I've been involved in. And I reiterate that I have been stalked a number of times before, and the stalking patterns are generally the same. They are the same so often that I currently make it clear on my user page that I won't even list my WP:GAs and WP:FAs there on my user page. When it comes to the Gender inequality and Antisocial personality disorder articles, I edited those first, as seen here and here. I did not significantly edit them, but they remained on my watchlist. I know that you state that you do not see a stalking pattern, and I accept that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To shorten that - you had no evidence, you accused someone of being a sock without evidence, you accused them of stalking despite the fact they have a fairly small defined area of editing which overlaps yours (which could be seen *at the time* you accused them of being a sock) and think that because they eventually show up at an article (within their area of editing) you edited sometime in the past its evidence they are a sock/stalking you? This is not a case of 'not having enough evidence' this is a case of you being so far from being in possession of anything resembling evidence that its laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And that is an inaccurate characterization, for reasons I and others in this thread have made clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... EIA must have gotten those two wrong in this case. I wonder why it lists Petergstrom as the first editor when it obviously has you editing it years ago... probably the timeline of the latest edits but it's still wrong. My apologies there Flyer22 Reborn, it would have done me well to dig that bit deeper. I looked at the thread on Peter's page where you; gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. I'm not going to harp on this because I've never had wikistalkers that harrassed me or been in any particularly difficult disputes, but, your approach is ... not one I'd recommend to anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my comment above: many people who edit Wikipedia for a long time develop a nose for sockpuppetry. Some have OK noses, some have good noses, and some have very good noses. Flyer22's nose for sockpuppetry happens to be very, very good. That doesn't mean that she is correct in this case - everyone is human, everyone makes mistakes - but it does mean that admins should (and some do) pay some attention when she voices a suspicion. I'd very much like to see the CU policy loosened up somewhat, so that editors with a good track record regarding sniffing out socks are given enough credence to allow a CU scan to be done (even without a named puppetmaster) without the "no fishing expeditions" rule being trotted out. If the editor starts being wrong a lot, that credence can be lost, but in the meantime we'll have retired some socks. Further, I think an exception should be made for CUing editors who exhibit general sock-like behavior, something that many users can detect. All of that can be done totally within WMF policies - it's the en.wiki community which has chosen to fetter CUs, not the Foundation, which is ironic since, as the biggest and most read of all the WMF encyclopedias, we're the one which needs the tools to crack down on socking, while other wikis are the ones with the more liberal rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe summarizing this will help. I come to the board, asking for help, due to harassment from Flyer22 Reborn. I notified her on her talk page, and provided evidence. I used he/she/it, and was reprimanded. She responded with allegations that I have been maliciously planning, and subverting attention in order to troll her. I state that that is ridiculously self centered, paranoid, and ridiculous. She accuses me of following her to the following articles

• Veganism
• Vegetarianism
• Psychopathy
• Insomnia

These articles receive thousands of views a day, and are relevant in the health and neuroscience area, that I have been editing significantly in since I started. We first encountered each other in the psychopathy article talk page-I removed poorly sourced material, and then asked about changing the article to reflect its fringe status, however I realized I did not have a quality secondary source, and that it would be OR, so I backed off. I continued to edit in areas related to neuroscience, psychology, etc etc. For some reason, Flyer22 accuses me of sock puppetry, a serious, rude and unsubstantiated claim. I move on. In my editing of fibromyalgia, the creation of functional somatic syndrome page, and edits to he biology of depression, I came across a link to insomnia. I had quite a bit of research, so I checked the insomnia page, and saw that the pathophysiology section was poorly outdated. I updated it. I saw something claiming major benefits from vegetarian diets, so I went to check if it was true, on the WP article I saw some pretty crazy claims too. So I did some research, found secondary sources, published recently in quality journals, and updated the article to reflect current consensus. While browsing in neuroscience, I find the human brain page to be terribly deficient in the "functions" section. I edit it. And then I get accused of following Flyer22 to articles. Her behavioral pattern of seeing malicious intent in everyday goings on is ridiculous, and even more so is the audacity she has to threaten someone with it. What is even worse, is that instead of finding an objective admin board, objective like I experienced with the fantastic editors(mostly) in the medicine section, I find Dark Kite showing "fantastic legwork", showing how Flyer22, with 240,000 edits, and I with 1500 overlap on some articles in my region of interest. Woah. Crazy? Not really. It is not even INDICATIVE of me giving two damns about what she edits(which I demonstrated by showing my overlap with other prolific editors in that area). However, nobody takes seriously the harassment posed by her, but they do take seriously her crazy claims, not based in reality. Summarized.Petergstrom (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time the OP familiarize himself with the First Rule of Holes? John from Idegon (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Newcomer User:Soli58 has arrived on the scene (Contribs). El_C 04:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

{@El C: So is that it? Is this report done? So the harassment by Flyer22 I should just ignore? That can be done. And is there a consensus about Flyer22's allegations(with zero evidence)?Petergstrom (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You failed to respond when I asked you about your non-working claimed-NPA link — and that question remains unanswered. No, you've failed to establish a clear pattern of harassment to my satisfaction. El_C 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh my god. I thought that it didn't work as in it was insufficient evidence! All this time??? Oh my god. I will fix it. Wow.Petergstrom (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

here it should work now. Now what about the counter allegations?Petergstrom (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the personal attack? Asking if you're a sock? It's not the most goodfaith-assuming question, but I don't know if that rises to that level. El_C 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• i've been pinged a few times and have been thinking. Thoughts:
  • if you look at Petergstrom's first edits from Oct 2016, they are not really a newbie's. (see here). and they were warned about edit warning almost right of the gate.
  • I encountered Petergstrom first at articles about health (their articles in that arena have been about neuro and psych topics) and their edits on each article have been extensive (big flurries of rewriting) and generally poor in sourcing and summarizing. Clearly has a strong interest in neuro/psych so I (and others) put a bunch of time into trying to teach them how to edit correctly on health topics... and at the rate they were editing this was essential. (you can see the dialogue in this old version of their talk page) Their initial responses were dismissive like this:: The content was sourced!! What are you talking about? and this: I did read it. I am not ignoring it, the sources are totally valid, stop reverting the edits.. And kept insisting that their extensive use of old/primary sources was fine. (diff, diff) They finally kinda sorta got it. Kinda. I have remained cautiously hopeful they would turn out to be solid members of the community.
  • Around that time they did some aggressive and badly reasoned editing at Performance-enhancing substance as you can see from its history -- aggressive reverts. There was an equally aggressive advocate on the other side who self-destructed finally. I happened to agree (mostly) with the direction Petergstrom wanted the article to go, but the behavior and reasoning were bad and aggressive (you can see that on the article talk page too) and got them their first block for edit warring.
  • their editing at MDMA and its talk page was so aggressive and unreasonable that I brought them to EWN, leading to a block: case is here. If you review their comments in that case, you can see that they misrepresented their own edits (and behavior) at that board, which was doubly troubling.
  • as is evident in the history of the Chronic pain article here, as recently as a couple of days ago they added a slew of COPYVIO content that had to be revdelled.

And their aggressive effort to prosecute this ANI and ignoring of feedback they are getting, is par for their WP history to date, and not promising. I am not too hopeful about their long term prospects to be productive. Which is what led me to post here.

All that said, I can't support Flyer's claim of stalking. Petergstrom has been editing religion and neuro/psych pretty consistently from the beginning and edits to the Brain article do not seem stalkerish to me.

Flyer tends to be accurate about socking but i have no real comments on that issue other than my initial one above, and that based on their behavior i wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

Petergstrom fwiw I recommend you walk away from this ANI case - you are not going to get the satisfaction you want - and instead concentrate on building high quality content (great MEDRS sources, summarized and not copied, accurately) and working better with others. Your hands are way too dirty for this case to get any traction. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yea sounds fine to me. I will ignore Flyer22 for now.Petergstrom (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. please keep in mind the " and working better with others" part of what i wrote :) Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am currently focusing on patrolling and editing article content, and am no longer interested in this thread, but I wanted to go ahead and note that I did not state that Petergstrom followed me to the Insomnia article, which is an article I had only edited a few times. I mentioned the Insomnia article to explain why I view Petergstrom's style of editing to be problematic and my belief that he followed me to the Human brain article. I specifically mentioned the Human brain article on the Insomnia talk page when criticizing Petergstrom's deletion style. I did not mention it as an example of a good or great article. I mentioned that it is an article I am working on, and an example of an article that no one should hastily take a hacksaw to. It needs to be edited with care. I mentioned this despite knowing the likelihood that Petergstrom would follow me there. There are few Wikipedia articles of significant interest to me that I can edit without worrying about a lot of conflict. Editing that article was something that gave me peace because there were no big disputes going on there and I knew that I could focus on bringing the article to WP:GA level, like I had been meaning to do. The article is currently full-protected, and I hope to edit it with little conflict in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: When it comes to considering whether or not I am being stalked, I do carefully examine the matter; I don't solely base it on past experiences. The past experiences do, however, significantly aid my deductions. I have an overlap with Doc James and Jytdog too, but Doc James rarely gets involved with articles like Vegetarianism or Veganism, or sexual and gender topics, and Jytdog is editing some of the articles that I edit because either I asked him to or he saw past stalking matters related to me and decided to get involved. In addition to the aforementioned articles I noted that I significantly edit, I just noticed that Petergstrom has also recently focused on the Gender article. I have significant history with that article, and with other gender topics. Having some overlap with me is understandable, but when it's articles that I significantly edit, and across a number of different fields, I think I have a valid reason to be concerned. History shows that I do. I take being hounded very seriously and will not hesitate to bring the matter to WP:ANI if I feel that I have compelling evidence of being hounded. All that stated, I am looking to resolve the Human brain article dispute and will try not to inflame matters involving Petergstrom in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I too do not want to escalate things anymore. I dont think there is anything more that I can say, other than I truly do not care about what you edit, and have no intent to hound or harass. Buuuuuuut.....all the stuff is in one field-gender is relavent in neuroscience and psychology. But that is beside the point. Bottom line is, I truly have never had, and never will have the desire to hound anyone. Petergstrom (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Experience shows that mature people who are interested in collaboration and the development of the encyclopedia are able to make complaints without the level of indignation seen in this case. If you are really interested in building content it might be an idea to focus on that, while engaging in any discussions on article talk pages in a constructive manner. And stop posting here unless it is to post new evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to concur with others that User:Petergstrom's edits in the areas of medicine and religion have been extremely problematic. One can see that User:Petergstrom edits with an agenda, promoting a non-neutral point of view; for exaxmple, he attempted to add information to our articles about Jesus and Moses, saying that they both had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). On our article about Religiosity and intelligence, User:Petergstrom has inappropriately censored content that he just didn't like, possibly because it called into question his own POV--what's more troublesome is that he tried to conceal the nature of his edit by using a benign edit summary. This is part of a deeper problem concerning User:Petergstrom and their editing behaviour. At this time, a topic ban on articles relating to medicine and religion, broadly construed, is warranted.--Jobas (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this particular situation but I should probably mention that the last time that I saw Flyer22 get accused of "Wikihounding with false sock puppetry accusations", her sock accusations were very much correct. DarkKnight2149 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 by this you mean that Flyer's accusations were correct, no that the accusations against Flyer were. I'm asking because it's not 100% clear to me which one you mean. I'm guessing the former since you've linked an LTA case in which Flyer was significantly involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude I meant that the accusations that Flyer made were true, not the accusations against her. Sorry about the unintentional ambiguity in my statement. DarkKnight2149 02:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Still no response from User:Soli58. El_C 23:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Petergstrom on articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed

• Support As mentioned by multiple editors above, User:Petergstrom has failed to adhere to WP:NPOV in the areas of medicine and religion, which is demonstrated by edits such as attempting to add false information to articles about historical religious figures, e.g. stating that Jesus and Moses had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). He has also censored information that might not support his personal POV, e.g. recent diff), he also ignored the Pew research source and decide to put a POV on atheism (see here recent diff). These issues, coupled with User:Petergstrom's hounding of User:Flyer22 Reborn warrant a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed.--Jobas (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Jobas, the religion additions were when I first started--one source was not enough for what I wrote. They additions weren't "false". Secondly, the recent edits on the religion and intelligence articles are actually being pushed in the direction I was attempting to push it in before your edit war( relavent info, quality sourcing).Petergstrom (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support This user's edit history is very troublesome. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that religion needs to be included here, but I've been watching the medicine issues from afar for a while, and I'm leaning towards supporting a topic ban there. I'd like to hear from a few more editors before making up my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Seeing that Petergstrom does seem to be seeking to do better, perhaps through mentoring, and that the SPI appears to have come up negative (alleged master and sock on different continents), I am now leaning oppose to a topic ban, with a strict understanding that WP:ROPE now applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Checking back and viewing subsequent comments and events, I'm going back to my original inclination, and I support topic bans in both topic areas. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for medicine only. I don't think we have a demonstration of contentious editing in on religion. I'm troubled by what I have read in this thread. The indignation and battle ground mentality exhibited by the OP is not encouraging.--Adam in MO Talk 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO this user's editing in on religion is very troublesome as well, (see /w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=747047573 Example 1, Example 2), (Example 3). Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have viewed those links and I don't think that Peter is at the level of a topic ban yet. Bad edits don't warrant a topic ban. Bad edits and battle ground behavior certainly do. Do you have any evidence of the latter?--Adam in MO Talk 16:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO I think it's bad edits and battle ground behavior, for example see here in Jesus article: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and the user demonstrates here that they are aware of the consequences of edit warring. anther example is Ignatius of Loyola article, see here (1), (2), (3). also here in Moses article (1), (2), (3). It's just some examples.--Jobas (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

JobasThose are misguided edits from a new users. No one has presented any indication that the contentious editing is ongoing. Thanks for your input. I respectfully disagree.--Adam in MO Talk 22:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO, no problems, Thanks and Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, although early on I pretty much interpreted the policies in a way the community did not generally interpret them, I have actually made some pretty decent contributions in the neuro/psych area. I understand the my lack of desire to engage with other editors has been troublesome, but I am curious as to whether my past behavior is really indicative of a future where the pros are outweighed by the cons. Petergstrom (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support for ban on religion and likely medicine. Unfortunately, I had to intervene as a mediator on a few recent edit wars on the Religiosity and Intelligence page and was a bit disturbed by some of the recent edits the editor used such as [2] when some compromise would have been the better choice during the edit war. I also found troubling that after being warned about violating the 3RR, the user deleted that information from their talk page [3]. Also, when discussing a source on atheism and religion if it was acceptable, the language seemed quite aggressive and dismissive to others when it could have been charitable including remarks telling other editors that they should not edit religious pages [4] because of them identifying with religion was POV pushing and conflict of interest on religious pages. On the 3RR noticeborad one of the edits even said "Thats 3RR, there is obviously a COI, given you user page. I don't want to have to talk this to admin board" [5], as reported by another editor User:Renzoy16. No editor should ever say to another editor those kinds of things. For medicine, it seems that the editor has been blocked twice for edit warring there too despite being on Wikipedia for only a few months. Perhaps this can be remedied if the behavior changes significantly, but it need not get this hot over religion topics.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - for all the troubling history, some of which I agree is extremely troubling, the editor in question hasn't even been here a full six months yet, at least under this name. If someone were willing to mentor him as per WP:MENTOR, it might be possible that his conduct might improve. Having said that, there does seem to be a very real issue of perhaps excessively high self-opinion regarding this editor, and if that were true it might well be that mentoring might be ineffective. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A CU was just performed and confirmed that I am unrelated to any of the accounts I was accused of operating. The behavioral "evidence" is weak at best.Petergstrom (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"The behavioral evidence is weak at best" You don't talk like a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And it is also, I think, hard to imagine a relatively new user so frequently expressing outrage regarding the conduct of others, as Petergstrom has repeatedly done here. Most newer editors I've encountered are much less familiar with all the details of our policies and guidelines, and on that basis have been much less likely to indulge in such expressions of outrage. And I think most newbies would be a lot less likely to use the abbreviation "CU' as Peter does above as opposed the full term. Most wouldn't be as familiar with the abbreviations, although a person with a history of sockpuppetry would probably know it all too well. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I just came from viewing the CU page...that was how Jytdog abbreviated it, so that is how I abbreviate it....I can't believe I thought this would clear things up. Looks like no amount of evidence can change the preconceived opinions you guys have. I'm so done. Whatever.Petergstrom (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Petergstrom: you will notice that I have actually indicated that I thought mentoring you might be useful as an alternative to sanctions. And thereafter you, on no basis whatsoever so far as I can see, accuse me of having preconceived notions. Your comment, if anything, demonstrates your own biases and apparent unwillingness to deal with criticism. While I thank you for your clarification, I also believe it reasonable to note that what may well be one of your most substantial problems, an unfortunately high opinion of yourself and your regularly making at best unwarranted incivil comments to others, seems to be continuing unabated, and that cannot reflect well for you. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors. But I currently don't see that happening right now, if, with very very limited evidence, the accusations of sock puppetry continue-with the constant threat of a ban looming, it is hard to work effectively. Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure I see "accusations of sockpuppetry." I see a statement from her that she might be collecting evidence for a sockpuppet investigation, which is rather a different matter entirely. There isn't a great deal anyone can do about editors doing such off-wiki - trust me on this as someone who has repeatedly been advised of collection of information against him by others. ;) On that basis, the "constant threat of a ban looming" also seems to be at least a bit of an overstatement. The best way to minimize any such risks might be to try to focus at least in the short term on some non-controversial articles and/or make a point of proposing changes on talk pages and getting support there before making them. There are a lot of WP:GNOME-like tasks which one could easily do to help make him more familiar with a broader range of content and other pages, which also might give that person a better grasp of "standard procedures" of a sort. And there are, presumably, a massive number of articles on books or authors in almost all topics which meet notability requirements but don't exist yet. Any such actions might be useful and probably less likely to lead to controversy. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Bearing in mind that "CU is not magic pixie dust", I simply don't believe this is a new editor, which is the only argument that seemed acceptable to me for not imposing a topic ban. Given that, a topic ban is quite a reasonable sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I actually see two proposed topic bans here, medicine and religion. Could you be a bit more specific about which proposal(s) you are supporting? John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I see one topic ban in the proposal, "a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed." Now some people may object to one part of it or the other, and if I had wanted to do so, I would have, but my !vote was on the proposal as originally stated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and my apologies. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - (conditional) *If* Petergstrom was sincere when he said "I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors., and *if* both sockpuppet investigations are closed without showing abusive socking (it now appears that will be the result), and *if* a volunteer can be found to mentor him on behavioral and interaction issues raised above, then a ban should be postponed. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Xenophrenic, and anyone else reading, the Petergstrom account being in a different continent does not mean that he is not Pass a Method. Keep in mind that Pass a Method was last identified in a sock investigation in 2014 and that it is now 2017. Because of statements by Pass a Method in the past, I considered that he had moved, which is why I noted that Petergstrom might be interested in having a CheckUser confirm that he is no longer in the United Kingdom. Sock investigations are not solely based on the CheckUser data; they are also based on the behavioral data. Sometimes solely on the behavioral data. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive for an example of a case where the CheckUser data was put ahead of the behavioral data and I then had to compile more behavioral data just to get the sock blocked. All that stated, if you believe that Petergstrom can be reformed, and it seems that you do, I hope that you are right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22 – I hear you. I don't feel like I have really made up my mind about this, but I tend to think that this is a matter of WP:ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I subsequently changed my mind, see above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support limited-time topic bans while noting that I am WP:Involved with the blocked user whose sock Petergstorm is accused of being. I'm not convinced Flyer22 got the right master, but the user's claims to be a newbie haven't convinced me either. I support the medical topic ban based on Jytdog's report of interactions above, and the religion topic ban based on this edit war in which the user uses a tabloid source to add a new section immediately after the Lead retroactively diagnosing a Catholic saint with a psychotic disorder. (The material could have been appropriate with secondary sourcing further down in the article, but not in it's own "Mental health" section without lots of high quality sources.) Also per similar bizarre edit wars on Jesus [6] and Moses [7] ~Awilley (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While User:Petergstrom is facing a topic ban on articles related to medicine and religion, broadly construed, he just continued edit warring on one of the same articles that brought him here! I think this demonstrates that he is unwilling to change and seek guidance. I therefore support a topic ban (and probably a block) because I think it's necessary for him to slow down.--Jobas (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just wanted to show the complete list of recent aggressive edits that were made by User:Petergstrom on the Religiosity and intelligence page [8] (from February 2 2017 mainly and up to February 14 2017) . On February 2 2017, User:Petergstrom disregarded the warnings, by at least 2 editors, that he had violated the 3RR. When User:Renzoy16 made the following edit summary "Removed information is relevant; User:Petergstrom has crossed WP:3RR" User:Petergstrom reverted with the following edit summary "I took it to talk, nobody cares. In actuality you have crossed 3RR" and continued to revert despite being notified by User:Renzoy16 and User:Jobas already.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support my impression from what I find in this huge time-sink/thread is that this editor's behavior, if permitted to continue unchecked, will lead to more huge time-sink/threads on this page. I'm seeing far too much WP:IDHT and POV-pushing, and far too little respect for the viewpoints of others. Lepricavark (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support based on recent history of remarkably unilateral changes to the Religiosity and intelligence page, a pattern of behavior which I seem to remember was also characteristic of PaM. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note: Further to Flyer's response to the Oppose (Conditional) above. this also appears to be a case where CU was taken over Behavioural.

• Support: Alongside the note above, Peter's response about taking it to talk and nobody caring? Rubbish. Why's he getting reverted if it's the case that nobody cares? Besides, why can't you move onto something else related to the topic while you wait for responses, I know pages that can take months for replies and don't complain! I think a Boomerang is in order. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 19:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support a limited-time topic ban. Peter's edits on religious topics show a tendency to make edits which are problematic for several reasons - WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:LAWYER, particularly. Working and playing well with others are core values for wikipedia editors. Giving Peter some time to think about why he's not allowed to edit in those topics is a good thing, he'll have the whole rest of wikipedia to hone his getting along with others skills. I am not persuaded by the analysis of edits presented to support the sockpuppetry accusation, but I don't need to be to support this sanction. Peter, please take advantage of the fact you're still editing at all to consider why we're doing this. Nothing personal, just WP:drop the stick, for your own sake. loupgarous (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comments: It looks to me like this ANI filing by Petergstrom was a preemptive strike, because he has clearly been stalking Flyer22 and was about to be reported at ANI for it. There is zero evidence that Flyer has harassed Petergstrom, and there is abundant evidence the other way around, and there is also substantial behavioral evidence that Petergstrom may be a sockpuppet. That said, I don't know what the correct sanction should be. At this point, it does not seem like Petergstrom is an asset to the encyclopedia.

  I will proffer some advice to Flyer22: Bad things happen when content discussions occur on usertalk pages. Stay off of usertalk pages, and in the future things like this (retaliatory stalking) will not occur. (And don't ever accuse someone of being a sockpuppet: File an SPI, or not; otherwise keep your mouth shut.) All content disputes should only ever be discussed and resolved on article-talk or project-talk. It's that simple.

  That said, I think a fairly lengthy or indefinite block for Petergstrom for disruption may be more (or equally as) appropriate than a topic ban at this point. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC); edited 01:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on both subjects. Medicine and religion are two serious fields and vandalism should be taken very seriously, especially there. Unfortunately we seem to be giving too much leeway for an editor who has not demonstrated that they deserve an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. I don't see their use here after all this drama. I would also promote a lengthy block as an appropriate response to this behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both topic bans for six months (or indefinitely, appealable in six months). User has made too many sweeping unexplained or inadequately explained changes to articles in both of these areas even after this topic ban was proposed. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I want to say that I acknowledge that my aggressive edit behavior has been a problem. I am working on improving my interaction with other editors here. I realize that I put myself in this mess, as I being an aggressive editor was the reason I was accused of being a sock. I hope that my recent(week or so) editing history reflects this change. Petergstrom (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of either temporary or indefinite nature. There seems to be a core deficit in this user's understanding of WP:WEIGHT that is particularly problematic in light of the major scientific and religious articles they often choose to contribute to, and this issue is further exacerbated by proclivity to edit warring and general inability to approach the consensus process and outcomes in the right way. There's also hints of WP:IDHT, although if we credit the the post by Peter immediately above as representative of his mindset, this may be changing for the better. Still, I think removal from these topic areas, giving him time to internalize some critical policies in other areas, is in order; afterwards, he will be better prepared to contribute constructively in those areas, it is to be hoped--whether that means appealing an indefinite TBAN or just waiting out the temporary one. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation

For those wondering why I have called Petergstrom a sock or what evidence I have, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I must give you props for the compilation of information on all of this. I am sure it took lots of time to collect. I also looked at Jytdog's comments on another sockpuppet investigation. I agree with Jytdog that the initial edits show some familiarity with how Wikipedia is used. Also the familiarity with some WP policy, including sort of frequent use of noticeborads - which most Wikipedians never really use, strikes me as not dealing with a someone new to wikipiedia. The edits mentioned by Flyer22 Reborn do show some similarity in style to some other past accounts such as the outlining style and similar interests in medicine and religion. I am inclining to agree that some sort of sockpuppetry may be at play. Normally, new editors learn some lesson after being blocked, but the recurrent blocking and alerting that has occurred from other editors seems to show experience with the process and also how to make a defense for it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Behavioral data (analysis of the putative sock's edits) in this case strike me as equivocal, and don't establish or exclude sockpuppetry. That user might be a former user other than Petergstrom. If the CheckUser contradicts the behavioral data, WP:ROPE is indicated, not sockpuppetry sanctions. I'd hate the project to rely on subjective impressions over less equivocal evidence such as CheckUser when imposing sanctions of any sort against anyone. That's what the analysis of the behavioral evidence in this case looks like to me. loupgarous (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I second everything said by loupgarous, behavioural evidence is always 'balance of probability', in this case I am only persuaded of 'possibility' (on the strength of what has been presented to date).Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, with regard to the comments of both. I've been following this matter since it surfaced here, but mostly reserving comment until I could see whether more substantial evidence may arise, but at this point it is pretty clear that we do not have enough information to make the community comfortable on acting on Flyer's suspicions. The SPI checkuser shows that Petergstrom edits from an entirely different continent than the user Flyer22 Reborn has accused them of being a sock of, and does not use a proxy. Flyer's theory that they could have moved to another continent and resumed editing since, while inside the realm of possibility, is a rather large presumption to make on the basis of some behavioural correlations, most of them superficial; even with a number of them, its all circumstantial and open enough to interpretation that I don't see it as possible that the community would sanction a user on those suspicions alone. In fact, I dare say it is only the degree of respect that Flyer commands in the community that has kept this thread afloat despite the lack of more concrete evidence. I'm no more comfortable about saying that her suspicions are groundless (especially in light of the kind of disruption/harassment previously threatened by the suggested sockmaster), but I'm not going to support any sanction for socking on the basis of what I've seen here and at the SPI.

I'd add also, for Flyer's benefit, that if she is correct in her assessment, she might reconsider her approach here. If this really is a user who threatened to come back and pull her chain/generally troll the project, then the depth of her reaction is certainly precisely the response such an obsessive/socially broken person would be here to elicit. If this really is Pass A Method, then every diff and every line in those voluminous comparative posts of Flyer's is a victory, because this is all a game to them anyway; they are here to bait one person in particular, and every moment spent responding to that bait provokes a gleeful response in such an easily amused troll lamebrain. And I'm not saying that Flyer should ignore the matter altogether--clearly that is not a pragmatic option either, especially in light of this thread. But I do think that, if she is absolutely convinced this is a sock of her old troll nemesis, she should consider what is to be gained by such a heavy response to them. If she is correct, then she is rewarding them with exactly what they want, and even if she succeeds in unmasking them, it will only lead to a pause while this user reconsiders their tactics and comes back again; indeed, it's clear from PAM's previous comments that the challenge of having to do so is part of their petty little thrill in this area. WP:DENY is the best tactic in these circumstances, in light of the fact that the topic ban proposed above is likely to succeed. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking for broader community input

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
There has been a recent discussion on my talk page which I would appreciate if you could go take a look at (User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#Second eye..) for the full picture. But in summary, we have User:MilenaGlebova1989 who has created 154 short articles on individual Yoga positions (or 'asanas'). Winged Blades of Godric and Cyphoidbomb are doubtful they are notable, are poorly sourced- mostly WP:PRIMARY- and ought to be redirected to our List of asanas article. There being so many qualifies them, I suggest, for this single, centralised discussion to take place.
So in the interest of wider discussion, in appreciation of the benefits that 'the intervention of administrators and experienced editors' can bring (and hoping someone will know of a means of mass-redirecting if that is indeed the conclusion), here we are. No particular administrative action is requested- except, again, if there are tools available to redirect en masse- although it is probably worth noting that if this had been replied to, something could have been worked out earlier and we may not have to be here now. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect - As I noted on Fortuna's talk page, if this were a single article, I would have redirected to the List of asanas article on the basis that independent notability had not been properly established, but given that we're talking about 154 or so cookie-cutter stubs, it seems a massive undertaking to perform without discussion--and frankly, without help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect--As the iniator of the discussion, I find zero-notability in these standgalone stubs and propose an en-masse redirect to List of asanas. Winged Blades ^Godric 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: These articles contain images with promotional watermarks[9] that were originally published under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). If I understand correctly we cannot (yet) re-license them under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Creative commons says: "The 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike allows contributions to be licensed under under a “Creative Commons Compatible License,” defined to mean licenses approved by CC as essentially equivalent to the 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike license. To date, CC has not approved any other licenses as compatible. However, CC will develop a compatibility process shortly following launch of the 4.0 licenses."[10] Also see:[11]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect, absolutely. Having spot checked a dozen of the articles I didn't find a single one that did more than mention the name of the pose, as well as some WP:NOTHOWTO violating advice and a list of titles (with amazon.com links for refs) of books that describe it - no indication of notability, and the articles look like spam magnets for various publications that mention them. It may even be the case that they were created in order to name-drop the author of the book and website that the images were taken from, given that all the images appear to have the same source - the same user has created articles about both the author and the book, in addition to all the asanas. (If so, we should be grateful that there are only 154 articles, given that the book apparently lists more than 2000 of them...) --bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good note about the spam potential, Bonadea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much Bonadea: does this kind of thing increase google hits, or something, d'you think? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is likely that some SEO people believe that it does, anyway - I have very little idea of how google's rankings work, but spamming the name of a person or product to various pages is something I see happen occasionally. That's not a reason in itself to delete the pages I guess, but it makes my spam spider senses go all tingly... --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yo, Cyphoidbomb... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This is very clearly a content issue, not a behavioural one, even down to the manner in which the OP has formulated the matter here. While I think it is advisable to seek outside perspectives, unless there is an implication of an underlying behavioural problem (and Fortuna has made no indication of such here), then this is just not the forum for this. I'd suggest WP:RfC, WP:VPP, WP:CD, and possibly WP:AfD (or some combination thereof) as potential appropriate forums for holding a straw poll or otherwise soliciting perspectives on the content. If the implication of this discussion were that MilenaGlebova1989 is likely to deviate from consensus on this matter, or otherwise behave disruptively, that's another matter, but Fortuna has explicitly stated that no particular administrative action is being sought. If it's just a matter of getting someone with more expansive tools to do the redirects en masse, that can be accomplished by making that request at AN (or of an admin directly) after a consensus on the content issue is reached at an appropriate forum, but ANI is not the place to host a content strawpoll itself. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP ws posting on behalf of others, including an aministrator. In fact, it is 154 content disputes but only *one* incident  :) Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's totally pragmatic to host one discussion on this matter, but ANI is just not the place for content discussions, for numerous reasons. If there's a behavioural issue that you'd like to raise in clear terms, this is the place to discuss that matter (but not the related content issues). Otherwise, I think you'll find that WP:AfD routinely hosts discussions for deleting/redirecting large numbers of articles all linked by a common nucleus of a single author or issue (See WP:BUNDLE). Snow ^{let's rap} 18:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OVERLINKING and redirect problems

Fmadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fmadd is a (relatively) new user on Wikipedia, but has already created quite a big stir. In the past two weeks alone they have created over 250 redirects and DAB pages (and a total of 942 redirs since joining). While clearly they are not all bad, the majority are somewhat nonsensical (such as thermomagnetic, Scattering_event, and a couple of not-actually-DAB pages that have already been deleted). From looking down their creation list, it almost appears as if they say "I don't know what this means", put a wikilink, and then attempts to shoehorn in a redirect to something that is vaguely related.

I was going to drop this and walk away, but after seeing three subsequent similar posts at the user's page I feel obligated to bring it up here. In the last two months there have been 5 threads on their talk page regarding overlinking and a half-dozen notices left for pages listed for deletion. They have displayed a rather alarming NOTLISTENING attitude, brushing off attempts at correction to things like "Wikipedia should be a...resource for AI training", "the more links the better", and finishing it all up with "I am utterly amazed that this is controversial" (hint: when a dozen different editors say it's problematic, it might just be problematic). A similar discussion at WT:PHYS has also been started, with similar results. Minutes after I nominated Organic dye for deletion (it had zero incoming links) they created 50 incoming links in a clearly POINTY response. Similarly, they brushed off being told that linking to dab pages like stellar explosion was not overly helpful.

Fmadd is clearly not getting the point, which is why we're here. The overlinking needs to stop, and the wanton creation of barely-usable redirects needs to stop. While we shouldn't just delete every redirect they've created, there are a bunch of them that could use some serious scrutiny and a ton of overlinking that needs to be looked at. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have had conversations as well. To be fair: Fmadd is a relatively new user and has not yet fully grasped that Wikipedia is a community project that works by consensus. He thinks Wikipedia should operate the way he wants it to, not the way it does. I do not believe any sanction is warranted at the present time, but what is required is someone with a bit more clout than us humble users to firmly explain how things work around here. With any luck, that should solve the problem. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that being relatively new is a good reason to avoid sanctions here. 10 months isn't that new, especially with 10,000 edits (I've been on here for a little over 10 months and 11,000 edits, and I understand consensus, it's a fairly easy thing to understand). 1/3 of his edits were in the past month, but you should have a general idea on how Wikipedia works with that number of edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit bothered by the fact that although User:Fmadd has commented on their talk page about the discussion here, and has been very busy editing, they haven't responded here. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion between admins. Fmadd (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

All this fretting about over-linking, when it turns out there's already a script that can change the colour of links (e.g. .. controversial pages can be marked and they no longer 'compete for the users attention'). I said I was amazed it was contraversial, because I can imagine there are technical solutions. With whats there now you can indeed de-highlight 'contraversial' articles. I bet the script or server side software could be further modified to mark certain types of page 'trivial' within a domain (hence blanked out by default) (e.g. all physics articles dont highlight trivial physics terms, all ) etc. I got the impression this is more about a 'priestly cult' mindset. It's only by arguing I managed to discover the highlighting script (several days in, he knew about it all along..) Fmadd (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmadd/linkclassifier.css there's an example, I was able to modify that link-highlighter script to display 'articles marked for deletion' blanked out. Fmadd (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd, has made other kinds of problematic edits as well, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#User:Fmadd and destruction of article leads. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems like there might be some competency issues lurking about. If someone informs you that you are causing a problem, it's not a normal response to search for a technical solution that allows you to continue to cause the problem it's meant to solve. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

lol. as I thought, priestly cult mentality. Instead of improving a system, some people prefer to nit-pick, criticise others and so on. Thats why it was only many days into the discussion that someone finally told me there *is* actually already a way to colour code links by category. It would be easy to have a category of 'exploratory links', invisible by default, which are only visible if a user goes out of their way to highlight them with a custom colour scheme. Thats the first step, but imagine if wikipedia had a concept of 'prerequisites', where you could flag content according to what knowledge is pre-requisite, and dynamically blank content depending on what a user has clarified they already know. Fmadd (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd, you're missing the forest for the trees. We're telling you that per the Manual of Style, the overlinking guidelines, and (based on other conversations) SURPRISE and LEAD conventions, you should not be creating all of these redirects, and you are saying we need to start colour-coding our links better. In other words, you're missing the bloody point. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

missing the point... there's already a facility for colour coding. My intuition was, "it is surprising that we fret about overlinking". There must be a way to improve the system such that contributing information is never a problem. Fmadd (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No Primefac, I think you're the one missing the point. If we wrote a script that flipped all our articles around for us, then we could write everything backwards, and it would automatically fix it. But instead you want to be close minded and demand that we conform to your cult of directionality. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

nice straw man there. I'm talking about colour coding (which already exists) not writing articles backwards. Fmadd (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You sure are. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fmadd, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the central point here, which has nothing whatsoever to do with color coding. The concern is that redirects you are creating should not exist at all and you are adding unnecessary links in articles. You may be surprised that this is a real concern, but it is, and brushing it off by suggesting the rest of us use a script or whatever to mitigate it is not the correct response. You don't have to agree with the concern, but you are expected to respect the established policy and consensus on this issue. If you'd like to change the overlinking policy you are welcome to try, but unless and until such an effort is succesful you should abide by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Fmadd, I agree with Beeblebrox. I'm going to ask you to stop adding links and creating redirects against current policy. You are very welcome to argue for changes in those policies, and to propose changes to the software to allow multi coloured links to facilitate those changes. But until you achieve a consensus that those policies should change, you must comply with them. Deliberately editing in contravention of policies just because you don't agree with them is disruptive. If you continue to do so, you will blocked from editing Wikipedia. WJBscribe (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I also think Fmadd just needs to slow it way down in general. They are editing so fast it is impossible to conceive that they are really thinking things through. I see formatting errors and creation of double redirects in just their last few edits, with no sign that they are even aware of them. There's no rush, and it's always better to think about what you are doing before you do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I rather fear that the double redirects are intentional, not accidental creations - see my comment below... WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've left them a warning. Regardless of if they're right or wrong (though they're wrong) editing practices should be checked until a resolution is reached. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example of the sort of problem this is creating - see Remote_control_(general). This appears to have been created by Fmadd on the basis that it will one day be a page with content (despite the fact that the disambiguator "(general)" is not used). See incoming links: [12] Numerous articles have had their links changed to point to Remote_control_(general). In addition several redirects have been changed to point to that page, apparently to deliberately create double redirects. This seems to be part of a master plan to restructure our articles about Remote controls and related topics. But instead of getting consensus to change that structure first, Fmadd has created a "web of redirects" to accommodate his vision of how the articles should be structured. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As a note, I reinstated the declined speedy and cleaned up that mess. Triple redirects! WTF. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• A thought regarding this incredibly disruptive editing - their edits have to be undone individually; we can't just unlink all links to their silly redirects because they used to point to valid targets... what a friggin nightmare. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  I've read some (not all) of the discussions with Fmadd, and my take is that this is a user who not only doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it. He's even trotted out that old saw, the cabal of admins, in the form of a "priestly cult". Frankly, I don't believe more argumentation with him is going to stop him doing what he intends to do, so I think it's time for admins to consider a sanction of some sort to stop him. My first choice would be an indef block that would not be lifted until he promised to undo the mess he made, but more kind-hearted souls might prefer a topic ban on creating redirects and making wikilinks - I just feel it's likely that he wouldn't follow it, and we'd be back at an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) see below. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Question 1: block or no?

Slight edit conflict with BMK above, but good timing I guess. First question is easy - if Fmadd refuses to accept the requests made here to alter their behaviour, do we block, or just impose a tban on creating redirects (i.e. a page-creation ban)? Primefac (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• tban on page creation. I think a while actually making productive edits will allow Fmadd to see why we do things the way we do. After six months or so they're welcome to request the return of their page-creation abilities. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked per their replies here. If this discussion "destroyed their faith in humanity" Wikipedia probably isn't for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• support indef. This isn't going to go well. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Question 2: all those pesky redirects

Fmadd has made a pretty big mess. The question becomes what to do about their past editing history. I see two main options.

Could whoever posted the above please sign their post? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (slap on the wrist)

Fmadd's past redirect actions are (mostly) overlooked. Interested parties are welcome to comb through them and RFD/delete/edit/restructure as desired, but no "official" action takes place.

Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (more involved response)

Fmadd's edits are all looked over by some sort of task force. Unnecessary redirects (such as Particle physics experiment and India gained independence) are deleted and the pages that linked to them are reverted to their pre-redirect status.

• Support and willing to help out. There are just too many ridiculous redirects to tie up at RFD. I think a well-documented task force page (similar to the SvG case) would allow for transparency and some measure of REFUND should a reasonable redirect be deleted. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• This is pretty much where we are at. Their stubborn refusal to even try and see the issue has now earned them a block, but there's still a mess to clean up. Beeblebrox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I will freely admit that I don't understand Fmadd's master plan, so I'd be useless in trying to help undo it - but let me ask this: is it not possible to simply run down his edits in the opposite order from which they were made, and arrive at a state before Fmass started his work? Yes, surely we would lose some edits which were actual improvements, but that seems like a small price to pay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, I wanted to propose a "nuclear" Proposal 3 wherein we do just that - roll back everything, delete everything, and pick up the pieces afterwards. I wasn't sure how well that would be taken, so I didn't propose it. I suppose the worst that can happen is it isn't acceptable, so I'll do so now. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (nuclear option)

Roll back all edits, delete all pages. Small team to go through and undelete the few pages that might have been useful.

• I would support this if it was changed a little bit:

1. List all created pages in userspace

2. Roll back all edits that were not on pages this user created

3. Review all pages in the userspace

4. Delete all unapproved pages in the userspace

We did the same thing with wp:x1 (with the exception of number 2), and it worked well, I think the same approach will work here. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That would work. I've already started compiling a list at User:Primefac/Fmadd. I completely agree with rolling back all of their mainspace edits, since 99% of the time it appears all they were doing was creating a link to an odd redirect. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In relation to point 2, I should note that Fmadd is sometimes correct that the links should be changed. The problem is that many did not need changing or, if they did, he often made the problem worse. We will lose some useful work if we mass revert his edits instead of reviewing each of them, but I estimate only about 10% based on what I've looked at in relation to Remote control. For example, there were some instances in which he changed articles that linked to that page when they would more naturally refer to Teleoperation (i.e. the process of controlling electronics from a distance, not the device that enables someone to do it). However, instead of linking directly to Teleoperation, he redirected Remote controlled to Teleoperation (which probably makes sense and shouldn't be reverted), and linked to that redirect (which doesn't). WJBscribe (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I concur that there is a small proportion of their edits that were actually useful, but given that I spent an hour untangling the "remote control" issue last night and ended up only keeping four edits out of about 100, I'd say in this case we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, if only for the sanity of those draining the tub. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Primfac, Gamebuster19901, and WJBscribe. This is the best option. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I support the nuclear option, given the downside seems so low. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support this iff the percentage of good contributions reported above is accurate. @Primefac:, yow is the listing coming? Do you have something the community can look at? Tazerdadog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, I've gotten User:Primefac/Fmadd into a reasonable shape. I've sorted the redirects by incoming link count, which will make proofing them a bit easier. I haven't sorted through their articles yet, but that's not quite as important. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

After a spot-check of my own, I have to disagree with the assessment of Primefac and WJBScribe. I found that about 50% of the redirects were a net positive, especially with small tweaks applied. Therefore I have to Oppose this option. A more detailed review is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, are you willing to support option 2? Primefac (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I support mass revert, unless somebody else wants to wade through it all in more detail. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Option 2, possibly combined with X3 is the appropriate response in my opinion. 50% is an unacceptable error rate, and based on my evaluation both a nuke and a slap on the wrist would have that error rate. I'd be willing to wade through a significant chunk of it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

My 10% figure above was stated to be based upon review of Remote control based redirects. If link changes/redirections in other topic areas show as much as 50% positive edits, then I agree that this calls for a more nuanced step-by-step review of the edits. Such an approach would also allow editors to correct occasions where Fmadd identified a problem but applied the wrong solution - the optimal result is neither a revert nor keep Fmadd's edits in those instances! WJBscribe (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Could whoever made this proposal please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on the above questions and proposals

Fmadd, I guess this is the part where I ask you if you're willing to take into consideration the views expressed in this discussion as well as on the various talk pages you've been involved with. To summarize a few of the points:

• Decrease the number of redirects you create. Start discussions to see if they're necessary. Pipe otherwise.
• Slow down on the editing. Thing don't need to happen immediately. Finding out an idea isn't the best after two days is a lot easier to deal with if you then don't have to go back and fix fifty pages afterwards.
• Start discussions. Yes, I mentioned this above, but this goes for things like moving remote control unilaterally. Consider all page moves to be potentially contentious, and ask if it's a good idea first.

There are other points mentioned above, but these are the major ones. Does this sound reasonable? Primefac (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

well I can take a break from this, and amuse myself somewhere else for a while. I'm not going to stay focussed on making major changes if it takes several days of discussion.. I just wont bother. thats why I liked blasting my way through one issue at a time. If you dont like redirects then my workflow can't be used here. I might as well give up. Thanks for destroying what little faith in humanity I had.. they're just redirects.. and you have to get all "priestly-cult"/"control freak" over it. The point of redirects (or any other abstractions) is breaking problems down into smaller pieces, at which point solutions crystallise out more easily. Tension in "the plan" or ambiguity is just a sign of something else to fix. I've seen this situation many times before. Some people have more to gain from problems, than solutions. Fmadd (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough. Deploying block hammer. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If Fmadd hasn't been here before under another name, I'll eat my aussie hat. Flat Out (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

He seems fond of the "priestly cult" meme - anyone recall another editor using that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"Easier to make mass changes and argue later" seems to be a hallmark, this is their work too Flat Out (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If Fmadd isn't already back as Special:Contributions/Ll928, I'll eat my non-Aussie hat (it's got fewer corks). Dukwon (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• As much as I've been opposed to similar solutions in the past, I'm really leaning toward the nuclear option, at least on anything that's purely a redirect. Looking through several pages of their creations, they seems to be an attempt to...I guess...manually create a search function? Probably fully a quarter of them are created as questions e.g., "should X redirect to Y?" or "is A the proper term for B?" I'm just not seeing much in the way of harmful collateral damage that would in any way outweigh the inordinate amount of time it would take to sort through these individually. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We could expand wp:x1 to include redirects created by this user. Just an idea I thought should be mentioned. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. The main question in my mind, and I really don't know precisely how this works with the admin bit, but if all article creations are nuke-able with the click of a button, is there anything worth saving in the ~9% of their article creations that are not redirects, which would justify having to tag and delete 950 redirects. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I won't support or oppose nuking everything outright without a review, but if it comes to it, I wouldn't get upset about it. I've added a different proposal under the Nuke proposal. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Speedy Deletion Criteria in Response

Since there seems to be consensus at this time to revert these edits, and issues VERY similar to this have happened before (see wp:X1) I am proposing a new speedy deletion criteria.

X3: Pages created en-masse by a single user, where the community has established broad consensus that the pages are harmful to the encyclopedia, would create significant backlogs in their deletion discussion areas, and the reviewing admin believes that it will not survive a deletion discussion. Once the community establishes that the backlog is cleared, normal procedures resume.

It is similar to wp:x1, except it can be applied to more situations so we don't have to keep creating new X criteria. X1 would be merged into X3.

Deletion reasons made under this criteria should contain a link to the discussion where consensus was established, and say "TYPE OF PAGE" created by "USER", to distinguish what situation the pages were deleted in. A list of situations where this criteria has been used should be created.

Example of deletion message: "Redirects created by User:Example, see discussion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 18:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that. I should have the full list of redirects soon, which would give an indication of how much this criteria would be needed. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This is more of a procedural point, but wouldn't this really be an expansion of X1 rather than the creation of a new criteria? TimothyJosephWood 18:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I made it an X3 is because some deletion reasons currently just say "X1", and you wouldn't know that it was a Neelix redirect if X1 was expanded. It would be better to retire X1 and continue removing Neelix redirects under X3. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Does R3 "implausible redirects" already cover the case where a redirect is a special case of an existing general article/redirect? e.g. 3D unit vector when there's already unit vector Dukwon (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support the creation of a X3 criteria for his redirects, and DAB pages. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment If community consensus is necessary for a case to be added to this, isn't it just as easy for the community to authorise an X number criterion at the same time? I don't think this happens often enough for us to worry about running out of numbers. I can see this being open to the usual misunderstanding that many speedy criteria are. I'm not against the expansion of CSD criteria, but I think that perhaps keeping a specific number attached to a particular disaster one might be easier in the long run than having a catch-all criterion. I may well be missing something. (I know I'm missing my tea, and might see things differently later...) Peridon (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It would take longer to get consensus for a new speedy deletion criteria than to get consensus for invoking an already existing one. A perfect example is this discussion. A discussion similar to this would have to take place every time. In the future, someone could just propose the use of X3 instead of creating a new X. We also wouldn't have to create new template every time, we could just use X3 with values. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose creating a new speedy criteria that could potentially apply to any user, but would support X3 being specifically in relation to contributions by Fmadd (talk · contribs). This situation is rare enough that we can afford to take the time to add to CSD on a user-by-user basis. WJBscribe (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose already covered by existing criteria. If a user were creating pages in specific contravention of a ban, WP:CSD#G5 is covered. WP:CSD#G6 is sort of the WP:IAR of deletion criteria as well, if you have a good specific rationale, which is likely to be uncontroversial, G6 should cover it. Especially if a community consensus has already determined that some large block of articles should be speedy deleted as part of a long discussion, then someone could just tag each one as {{db-g6|rationale = <link to original discussion>}} should suffice. I'm already troubled by the existence of the X category anyways, and I'd not like to see it grow. --Jayron32 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment G6 only covers technical deletions, and G5 wouldn't work in this case as the user was not banned at the time the pages were created. Also, X3 would probably prevent more X's being created. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah...WP:BURO anyone? If the community assessment is that the stuff should be nuked, who gives two figs what bureaucratic code is applied to it, just go ahead and do it per WP:IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If the community decides a nuke is in order, then the pages should simply be nuked, and the edit summary should link back to this discussion. On the other hand, if the community decides a manual review of the edits is in order, a speedy criterion to keep everybody on the same page makes good sense. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Didn't we have that discussion already a few weeks back? The reason we use certain designations is that any user can see the designation in the logs and know why the deletion took place. The proposed X3 would mean people had to search for this discussion first. In this specific case, unlike the Neelix one, it would probably not be a terrible strain on WP:RFD if those redirects were listed there instead. We should take care not to create new speedy criteria unless it's really necessary. Alternatively, just nuke all the redirects he created, they are cheap and can be recreated easily. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per SoWhy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate global reverts

A great number of non-redirect contributions were just reverted out by Primefac, which does not seem supported by consensus above and is contrary to existing policy and precedent. For those arguing that nothing Fmadd did was not a redirect problem, you are very wrong, and this has been a grave error. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Last night I spent the better part of an hour undoing a mess they made with remote control - they moved it to another location, changed 100+ wikilinks to unnecessary redirects, and generally made a mess of things. In every instance I've looked, they've done this. In one instance they changed pair production into Electron–positron pair production, which is a redirect to pair production! I did not find any good reason not to nuke everything and sift through the ashes. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, that's one of the ones that tipped me something was going on. That one appears to be connected to the problems called out above. Hoever, Pair-instability supernova didn't have anything I see as a problem, he added two perfectly good links (one via a redirect, but a link should have been there from that term, and the other one went straight in to the existing article). So, question: is my watchlist the only two articles with a 50% obvious error rate for a global revert, or was the global revert too aggressive?... Sample size small, but so far I am not impressed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• [13] in "Second processor" where Fmadd removed a redundant word. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• [14] in Zeus Web Server where he linked Static and Dynamic Web Pages (appropriate, good links) via redirects (inappropriate). Just reverting was wrong-o. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ...annnd the same thing in Utopia Documents, a good link via a redirect that should have gone direct instead. And those three were just the last three things you reverted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Either fix the problems you see, or just file it under collateral damage and let's get out of the morass and back to editing an encyclopedia. I don't see this kind of nit-picking as being very useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I also don't find the "problems" you're highlighting here as terribly significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5) Their astronomy work was... less bad than the other stuff. Since I checked them all earlier, I can tell you - every single DAB they created they went in and created 5-10 links to it, regardless of if it even made sense (which it didn't). I found a huge copy-paste page move (which I did fix, by the way) as well as a ridiculous number of anchors placed in the first sentence of the article. Half of their edit summaries were "I don't know what this links to, maybe we can fix it later?". I will not deny that I undoubtedly reverted some decent edits, but I know that I fixed more than I broke, and by a significant margin. If you want to crawl through every edit I made, feel free to make a list and post it on my page, but at that point it's just as easy for you to hit undo as it is for me. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delaunay triangulation which was the fifth most recent thing reverted. With all due respect Beyond my Ken and Primefac, this is not collateral damage. This is clear evidence that "nuke it all from orbit" was the wrong thing to do here. I would be perfectly happy to take some fraction of the 900-plus edits that were reverted and fix them, but the right approach is what we do with copyvios and list them all out and have people take chunks of them and review them. And given the error rate in the blanket reversion, I suggest we do so from a position of undoing all the reverts and then cleaning up the underlying edits, rather than having to back through the reverts the hard way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• You've pointed out a few trivial errors: 4 out of 900-plus. That's hardly establishing a significant error rate. Also, I can;t believe you're using copyvio as an example of a procedure to follow: if you look at the copyvio area, you'll note that some of those have lingered there unchecked for a very long time, despite the hard work done by Brownhairedgirl and others. Here we have a case that's confined to a single editor, with what appears to be a fairly low error rate from nuking (or at least a significant error rate has yet to be established). Better, in my opinion, to nuke them all, and then fix the ones that didn't need nuking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• GWH: If you're pointing out these supposedly non-trivial errors here, why aren't you reverting them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Those were 5 errors in seven checks; the last 5 reverts Primefac made (time wise) and the two articles I had watchlisted. So my error rate is over 70% on that sample. 4 out of 5 on the last 5 reverts, which are random vs the ones I watchlist (which aren't randomly selected, they're both astronomy/physics related, which I will accept for the sake of argument may have been better done). Maybe we should check some other random set of them, pick somewhere for me to start in the 900 and how many you think is reasonable (5 more? 10?) I am perfectly happy to / will fix those 5 articles, but I want to start doing so after we determine what the global solution is. If we have to undo all 900 reverts I'd rather baseline that than patch a few of them and then have to untangle it after. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • 37, 194, 477, 635, 743. Take 5 edits starting at each of those numbers, examine them, and determine the error rate for those 25 edits. (Don't worry about precision in counting, the numbers are just pseudo-random starting points - any five starting points throughout the sample will do.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Going backwards from [15] as there have been updates since my last comments... (apologies, going to create list, then have to get on train, then will check when I get home, so need some time for the details...)

• First group: [16] this was an inappropriate link, [17] complicated - old link to central processor unit, new link to category of families of CPUs that he created, right answer is probably a new article to explain what a central processor unit family is (the CPU article doesn't now) - neither Fmadd nor the revert actual best solution, [18] new link to redirect to category he created - not obviously wrong but revertable per discussion above, [19] one link replaced three; link to redirect to category (same as prior entry) that was less subject-appropriate than the original three, probably wrong of Fmadd [20]

two links - first: straightforwards, correct link. Second: created improper redirect, but a direct link to target was appropriate - right solution should have been to direct-link the second instead of via the redirect. Reverts respectively right, (neither), right per consensus, right, wrong/should have fixed instead for 2 halves Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Second group: [21] two links to one link via a redirect into the second link's article - neither way best, should probably be single link to anchor in Matrix (mathematics) where real and complex matricies are defined, [22] new link to the same topic problem as first entry second group - same solution, [23] same as first, second entries, [24] same as first, second, third entries, [25] ah, new problem. Link to redirect (consensus bad) that should have direct linked to a vanchor I believe was appropriate in Addressing mode which was reverted out as part of all of this, so is broken now. four (complicated, should go to vanchor that was never placed instead); fifth should have been direct linked to vanchor that should be replaced (how do we score *that*...?) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Third group: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]
• Fourth group: (approx start) [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]
  • Plus next one: [36] just because I watchlist it, will not count for 25
• Fifth group: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

(bottom of list) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, five of Primefac's reverts of Fmadds edits show up on my watch list, all of which I checked, and only one of Fmadd's edits were, in my view, OK (which I restored). Paul August ☎ 02:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ll928

• Ll928 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

New user LL928 and Fmadd seem to overlap quite a bit. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. Clearly a sockpuppet. Blocked. WJBscribe (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

50504F

• 50504F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... not a 100% match, but I think the early stuff was to get to autoconfirmed. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Refocusing

There, at some point here, were definitely some coherent options that got muddled by formatting and a lot of other issues. There seemed to be some general support for mass reversion and deletion, which itself got muddled by bureaucratic issues about creating a new CSD criteria, which then got muddled by specific reversions. So I guess my question to those involved is: what are the options that are still on the table, can we condense those into a couple that have general consensus, and can we decide between them? TimothyJosephWood 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: can chime in here, but unless I'm counting wrong, it appears to me that all of Fmadd's edits have been nuked, pursuant to the consensus in the sections above this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be impressed to find that all 1k of them have been taken care of, but if that's the case, and everyone's fine with it, then I suppose we can close and move on with ourselves. TimothyJosephWood 23:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I definitely don't see the consensus to nuke in the sections above. I'm happy if they were all legitimately reviewed, but I doubt that is the case. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The consensus seems quite clear to me, and I applaud Primefac's decision to follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Like BMK I support blanket removal. Those complaining that the removals should not have occurred without weeks of argument are welcome to check all edits and reinstate those that are genuinely helpful to the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia ever grinds to a halt, it will be because of the navel gazing and pointless bickering that occurs when the community responds to inappropriate contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted about 1700 of Fmadd's (current) edits, and I've been undone about 20 times. An error rate of <2% is perfectly acceptable to me. Due to some (understandable) hesitation (mostly by Tazerdadog) I have not nuked all of his redirects.

Given the apparently p<0.05 validity of their edits, my guess would be <5% of their redirects would be salvageable. I've taken a couple of days off to clear my head from the "nuke everything" blinders, and will be going through User:Primefac/Fmadd and seeing what could legitimately be kept. Hopefully I can get through this by the end of the week, and I'm thinking something like another week after that if there is no further input I'll delete what's in the "delete" pile. I'm pretty sure I started a talk page discussion and yall are welcome to join in. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if Primefac is committed to sorting through the issue, especially if Tazerdadog is willing to act as a second opinion, which should and seems to be respected by PF, is there anything here left which requires administrator attention or broad community input? TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think it would be beneficial to hear from @Georgewilliamherbert:, who objected most strongly (but politely) to the nuking, to see whether his examination of the 25 edits I suggested has changed his mind. Certainly, the complexity of what he has reported so far has not changed my mind that nuking was the right option, as opposed to having numerous editors dedicate large portions of their lives to undoing the cat's cradle Fmadd created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please ping me @Primefac: when you have the list of redirects to be deleted, and I'll check them over. I wish you hadn't done the mass rollback on Fmadd's edits, but I will acknowledge that consensus might not be with me on that point and it doesn't seem to be breaking the wiki. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, will do. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, Primefac: I'm just gonna say, I think you guys may be in the wrong place, since this seems a heckuva lot like civil editors cooperating to work through a well reasoned compromise. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed at ANI. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll notify the media. EEng 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that I posted User talk:Primefac/Fmadd#Am I allowed to modify these redirects? about a few redirects in particular I thought were plausible or fixable. I am weakly in favor of keeping the ones I mentioned; because of that doubt, I have yet to update Primefac's list, but I will do so ASAP. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Paid editor moving own drafts to mainspace

Early today I wrote at User talk:Janweh64 "Wikipedia, for reasons that I just can't understand, tolerates paid/COI editing in draft space. But where exactly do we say that paid editors can then freely move their own drafts into mainspace? As a paid editor, "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". But by creating a draft and then moving it yourself, you are effectively doing exactly that. I've moved Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), Himanshu Khagta, Legs4Africa, Miss Tara and KDDL Limited back to draft space. If and when you think they are ready to be included in this encyclopaedia, please submit them in the normal way."

Janweh64 had written those pages in draft space, with an apparently proper declaration of paid COI, but then instead of submitting them for review, just went ahead and moved them. The editor has not troubled to reply to my post (and indeed, is under no obligation to do so), but since moved two of those five drafts, Miss Tara and KDDL Limited, back to mainspace. While I don't see that any hard-and-fast rule (that I know of, anyway) has been broken, this appears to be highly inappropriate behaviour for a paid editor. At the very least, I suggest moving those pages to draft space for now. If others agree that the behaviour is inappropriate, a page move ban might be considered. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It is my belief that I have not violated any policy as stated above. However, moving articles to draft space is a move to circumvent the readily available avenue for addressing this issue which is to nominate such pages for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers has essentially achieved their goal of deleting these articles without any consensus or input from other editors. I believe the inappropriate behavior is theirs. I have made every effort to follow the policies.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You should not move articles into mainspace when you have a COI. You should request review as the template allows for. You absolutely should not move an article back to mainspace after it's been moved back to Draft. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run, charity-funded project. Writing for profit is already evil. Overriding the judgment of others like that? It will just get you banninated. Guy (Help!)

Guy, can you please explain what you mean. Where do I place said template when the page does not exist.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, I get it now. Can you please return the articles to draft space so I may request the edits on the draft talk pages so that a volunteer may evaluate them. I am sure that they are notable per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2, WP:LISTED and WP:ORGDEPTH. They do not qualify for speedy deletion per WP:G11.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that the policy? Is it forbidden for a paid editor to move an article from draft to article space? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is ever forbidden here, but it's a terrible idea, especially for the subject - being identified as a person or firm that paid to get an article on Wikipedia is not exactly a badge of honour. I'm happy that you now get it and have moved them back to Draft. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Guy, the discussion below leads me to believe I was perfectly within my rights. I only meant I understand what you mean. I would rather wait for the outcome of this discussion. As for badge of dishonour, the list of subjects that employ paid editors is extensive. Clarification: you have first deleted then you have moved them to draft after (I assume) reading discussion below. I am of the belief that a move to draft is not necessary and was just capitulating per your warnings.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:COI - content should be left to people without a conflict. Fine to create a draft, fine to request review and posting to mainspace, bad idea to move to mainspace yourself, terrible, terrible idea to edit-war back into mainspace after it's moved back to daft. That's not especially controversial I think. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, that's a guideline, not a policy. Second, it does not say that editing is forbidden. The most I saw was that editors "should" not edit, but I can't find a policy that says it's forbidden to move an article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Accusation of edit war maybe premature. I only reverted the move once because I believed it was inappropriate as I stated above.

WP:COI says "generally advised not to edit affected articles directly." This is clearly intentionally left ambiguous.

WP:COI - no where states "content should be left to people without a conflict." It also has no mention of "posting to mainspace" therefore posting to mainspace is simply an edit which is only discouraged. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, AFAIK there is no policy or guideline that forbids a paid editor from moving an article from draft to article space. - GB fan 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

GB fan, thanks, so we can then close this thread. The OP reverted a valid move and the paid editor rightly (or wrongly) moved it back. Nothing to see here other than some COI warriors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not to stop the process but the articles in question have now been inappropriately deleted through WP:CSD by Guy.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That was a piss-poor action. I would ask an admin to undelete. This is an admin action by an involved administrator and is not cool at all, especially for someone throwing guidelines around. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to add that I have no idea if the articles in question are good or should indeed be deleted, but it reeks of INVOLVED for an admin in this thread to do the deletion. There is no urgency to have an article deleted that another admin can't do the job. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) is at Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), Himanshu Khagta is at Draft:Himanshu Khagta, Legs4Africa was deleted, Miss Tara was deleted and KDDL Limited was deleted. - GB fan 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I stopped short of moving Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) and Draft:Himanshu Khagta back because I believe Justlettersandnumbers action in regards to those articles is appropriate. There is not enough to prove notability as I state in my user page. They should probably stay there till notability can be better established.

The other three though I have nominated for undeletion: here—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:COI is a guideline, and as it says in the Subcat guideline template transcluded to the top of our guideline pages: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It does represent consensus, and should be followed unless there is a valid reason not to. Ignore it at your own peril. Mojoworker (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So, Sir Joseph, you appear to be trying to suggest that JzG should not have posted here after deleting those articles. Why not? Isn't it rather normal for an admin to explain an action after making it? What exactly do you see as "piss-poor"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that what I wrote? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph ought to refresh his understanding of what WP:INVOLVED means. In particular, an admin is not involved when their actions have been administrative and not as an editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh and "very strongly discouraged" is about as close as the Wikiworld gets to "don't do this". What it means is that most editors wanted to forbid it but enough people objected that a compromise was reached. What it should be read as is "You're going to get into a heap of hurt it you do this." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Examples of Wikiworld "don't do this": WP:HARASS, WP:PERSONAL, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:VANDAL.... —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk)

The articles have been undeleted and Guy's actions or involvement is besides the point. The questions are simple:

1. Is a paid editor not permitted to move an article from draft to mainspace?
2. Is a paid editor required to submit articles for review before moving to them to mainspace?

All assuming off-course that paid COI was properly declared as I did. I would like the answers to these questions as much as anyone.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The community has repeatedly chosen not to ban paid editing. Accordingly, a paid editor is allowed to create articles and move them into mainspace. As I gather you know, the proviso to that is the need for full and public disclosure of your relationship with the client.

With that said, while it is allowed, if very strongly discouraged, you run into other problems. Most paid jobs I've seen have tended to be for articles that are marginal at best, and even good editors, faced with pay if they create it and none of they don't, tend to be poor judges as to the viability of the content. Having someone independent decide if it should be moved to mainspace allows that bit of distance which helps everyone - Wikipedia is more likely to get a viable article, the paid editor is less likely to have to explain why the article has been heavily tagged and sent to AfD as soon as it was created, and the client is more likely to get an article that stays. The other issue is simply practicality - if you are doing something controversial (and paid editing remains controversial), it is best to stay as far on the right side of things as possible. By not editing it directly, or not moving it to mainspace, and having independent editors help, you might still fail to get the article up, but you'll avoid most of the ire that you can provoke by ignoring the guidelines. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A few minutes ago I moved Draft:Legs4Africa, one of the drafts discussed above, to mainspace. It seems tolerably good as is. Please don't take this to mean that I think it was a good idea for its creator to do the same thing a little earlier, or that anyone was wrong to move it back. I chose this particular draft rather arbitrarily. I haven't looked at the others and I do not intend to do so: I hope that some other editors will look at them and judge them on their merits. -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hoary, I did. (Janweh64), I hope you will take a look at those individual edits, not because I'm necessarily right about them, but because I think I have a point: excessive detail and references that are really links to the company website and to (promotional) videos are hallmarks of COI editing. When all that stuff is stripped (and the article has now lost half of its size), what we have left is six newspaper articles, which in the current atmosphere is enough to pass notability guidelines, I suppose. Anyway, I think the article is more encyclopedic now, though your boss may like it less; still, I think I did you a service, and you can transfer my fee to my off-shore Wikipedia account. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Has a paid editor the right to move their drafts to mainspace? Technically, yes, although it is a very bad idea. Has any other editor the right to move these pages then back to draft space? Yes, there is no policy forbidding this either (and lots of reasons to support this). To avoid such a cycle, it would be much, much better if Janweh64 stopped moving his pages to the mainspace and submitted them for review instead. Fram (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• It might not be strictly forbidden by policy, but the content of those drafts make it pretty obvious why review is an extremely necessary thing in these cases. Legs4Africa is actually pretty decent. Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur), on the other hand... An article about the holder of the world record for the longest handshake? Really? Sourced to blogs, self-promotion platforms, LinkedIn and business database entries? I'm not seeing it. Draft:Himanshu Khagta is, in a way, worse, because it appears to be sourced to well-known reliable sources... but those articles are not about him, they just use his photography. Buying a photograph from a stock images collection does not constitute significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Some of those articles are clearly not ready for article space and the fact that this editor chose to move them there shows that his COI has clouded his judgement. GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I invite you to examine the statements I made on my user page long before this discussion began. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies:As far as I know, references to the company website are permitted as per WP:SELFPUB. A close inspection will reveal conformation bias in anything. And (at the risk of poking the bear) your actions are slightly WP:POINTy behavior as OP has taken your edits as license to continue by removing everything from the infobox. Two editors have found the article acceptable before you. What would happen if we chose an article you created and put it under a microscope. Or even better what would happen if we chose another article I created but have no COI (and there are a few). Where does COI end and simple incompetence begin?

On the contrary, my "boss" would be just as happy. His only concern is the lack of understanding in the absolute dominance Wikipedia has. You fail to realize the amount of power you have and how easily large corporations can influence your decisions, not by direction but sheer size and media influence. Please consider the examples: Apple Inc. reference section which has (94 out of 429) references to apple.com with a couple press releases and endless product pages, FA-articles Ace Books (8 out of 55), BAE Systems (37 out of 199, includes press releases), Holden (6 out of 179, 3 press releases), Cracker Barrel (9 out of 89, 5 press releases) and you can check the rest yourself. What you have demonstrated is my sheer admiration of Legs4Africa!

Can we please end this before someone accuses me of WP:PAYTALK or I am to be flogged and paraded some more? Consesus is clear. I am not strictly forbidden to move articles to mainspace. I am strongly discourage from doing so and very strongly encouraged to use a review process.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Janweh64, SELFPUB doesn't say we can stick in a ton of links to the website of the subject of the article. It allows for verification, not for promotion. If facts are supported by real sources (reliable, secondary ones) a self-reference is unnecessary, and if a self-reference is the only available reference, one should ask whether that information is necessary in an encyclopedic article in the first place if no one else has noticed it. I have not investigated all articles on Wikipedia, but I'm working on it, and if you peruse my edit history you will see that I am quite consistent in this, or at least I try to be. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And to the question by Mojoworker: Why do I even ignore this guideline instead of the review processes available? Please notice the 8 months backlog for request edits most of which are nonsense no one has bothered to decline? And Hoary, thank you! —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Janweh64, have you suggested to your clients that they should read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Are you suggesting that I should tell my current client Geronimo Trail National Scenic Byway that an article about them will be detrimental to their mission.[42] —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing says. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't hurt. I will send them the link.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this from a COI content perspective, we have:

• Draft:Matt_Holmes_(entrepreneur) "He is one of the two current world record holders for the longest handshake." Notability seems marginal.
• Legs4Africa is about a charity which has coverage in the Guardian, BBC News, and the London Daily Mirror, indicating reasonable notability.
• Draft:Himanshu Khagta is about a photographer who follows others around while they do something notable, or semi-notable. One "attempted to set the Limca World Record for the longest Himalayan expedition on a tractor". He's working on two books of pictures. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON for notability.
• Draft:Miss Tara is about a DJ. The usual standards at WP:MUSIC should be applied.
• Draft:KDDL Limited is about a company in India which makes watch parts. Notability may be there per WP:CORP, but the article reads like a corporate brochure.

Right now, the only article of the group that's in mainspace is the one which seems to belong there. So no COI article repair or deletion activity seems necessary at this time. John Nagle (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur) has been deleted with my agreement
• Draft:Himanshu Khagta's notability is I admit too soon
• Draft:Miss Tara: qualifies under criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC.
• Draft:KDDL Limited: I have stripped this article leaving only a perfect example of WP:Systemic bias.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Modern Sciences, disruptive editing

I want to inform that the User:Modern Sciences heavily pushes POV, removes content from articles and vandalises articles.

• Robert Kocharyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Serzh Sargsyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aşağı Ağcakənd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shusha massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Guba mass grave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Baku pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Füzuli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lachin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Economy of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Puppet state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of territorial disputes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• History of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Madrid Principles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I regret that after 4 warnings and many reverts the user is still engaged in disruptive editing. Therefore, I ask admins to take all the necessary measures to stop the user from disruptive editing. Boaqua (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Pleas supply actual WP:DIFFs that show the disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. His edits are a bit WP:POINTY, but are referenced. OP seems to be an Azeri upset with the edits based on the editing history.70.209.144.80 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You can check the history of the articles I linked. For example these edits:

• Robert Kocharyan : (1), 2 hierarchy? City, Province, Country.
• Serzh_Sargsyan: 1 hierarchy? City, Province, Country.
• Aşağı Ağcakənd, Shahoumian, Shahumyan, Shaumyan is an Armenian name
• Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum, 1991 :
• Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast: 1, 2
• Azerbaijan this article (Manipulation of the source material)
• Karabakh horse: 1
• Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh: this edition
• this
• Zəngilan: 1
• Azerbaijan: 1
• Armenian: 1, 2
• this
• Shahbulag Castle this
• Economy of th Nagorno Karabakh Republic: this (Manipulation of the source material and delete a big par of it)
• Lachin: this

Unfortunately, All of the editions of this user done be this method (Manipulation of the source material - deleting sentences, replacing with of other words or sentences, ...), Examples that above I mentioned are only a few of them. Dear reviewer admin I wanna inform that the User Boaqua heavily pushes POV, removes content from articles and vandalizes articles. I gave some Warning to him no responses

I dont know why Admins Waiver to his disruptive editions I dont know??

Modern Sciences (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You can check the history of the articles I linked. For example these edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madrid_Principles&type=revision&diff=765881957&oldid=765881587

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh&type=revision&diff=765882469&oldid=765882276

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Kocharyan&type=revision&diff=764738072&oldid=746419341

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serzh_Sargsyan&type=revision&diff=764737838&oldid=762912719

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guba_mass_grave&type=revision&diff=765881808&oldid=765881495

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_the_Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic&type=revision&diff=765638657&oldid=754064945

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puppet_state&type=revision&diff=765631561&oldid=761130010

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_territorial_disputes&type=revision&diff=765633057&oldid=765599902

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh&type=revision&diff=765639212&oldid=764597602

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madrid_Principles&type=revision&diff=765632003&oldid=756138341

The user was also warned by an admin, but continued his disruptive editing. Boaqua (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Block: If the offender cannot communicate properly and continue disruption, it may be possible for an admin to set the ban-hammer. SportsLair (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I also point out that Modern Sciences keeps adding a SPAM link to a site advertising the sale of some Armenian artist's CD at Kavare Mer, here, here and here.

Further, he keeps changing the date format from DMY to the American MDY format at Gohar Gasparyan. Since this an article not about an American subject the date format of MDY is not appropriate. Currently three reverts at here, here and here though not within 24 hours.

My only other concern is that his standard of English falls way short of anywhere near good enough to edit the English Wikipedia. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually came across this thread through 86.186.169.144's talk page, but clicking though the history on the articles that originally started this it, it looks like OP and MS probably reverted each other...I dunno, two or three dozen times across a span of a little more than a day. Was probably enough to justify blocks for edit warring all around. Well, other than the fact that that was almost a week ago. But since it appears that MS is continuing with similar behavior, I'm not seeing an obvious argument against a block for basically prolonged topic wide warring. TimothyJosephWood 18:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing like a bit of gross exaggeration. Please post diffs to these reverts (and you need to find at least twenty four to support your claim). The editing history reveals a different story. I have made a total of six (6) reverts across two articles in a little under two days. Whilst I, might concede that removal of advertising links does not appear to be a 3RR exemption, reverting vandalism is. At no time have I violated the 3RR rule. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about User:Modern Sciences and User:Boaqua. All you have to do is click through the histories of the 14 articles that are posted at the very top of this thread. Sorry, but I really don't feel like putting together 30 or so diffs. I meant OP as in original poster, not IP as in you. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Devencci2005 – disruptive editing, part 3

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

---

• Devencci2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previously reported here twice and blocked each time for not using timestamps when updating statistics, Devencci2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just doesn't seem give a s*** while also using transfermarkt as a source which is considered unreliable here as they have been told repeatedly. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User constantly adds unsourced information to articles and his changes are usually reverted. He has never posted on a talk page and doesn't use edit summaries. Since he has made no reaction at all to two previous blocks, I suggest that an indef is the obvious next step. EdJohnston (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked. Any admin may lift this if they are convinced the user will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Good job. Case closed. SportsLair (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible block evasion by User:Fanoftheworld

I made a self revert at Steinway & Sons after Huggle misfired and caused me to revert the wrong page. However, when I was reverting the erroneous warning at User talk:193.33.148.24, I noticed a previous block by User:Edgar181 regarding block evasion from User:Fanoftheworld on the same article using this IP. Therefore, I believe this user is repeating the behavior which spawned the block. Home Lander (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I blocked this IP on Feb 16 because it was reported to AIV as an IP-sock of Fanoftheworld and was editing disruptively. Edits since the block expired appear to be constructive to me, so I would let it go for now - but I don't really know the history of this editor, so if there is an admin who knows more and feels a different action is needed, I won't object. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the IP was back at it again shortly after you posted, and it has been blocked again by Widr. Home Lander (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Chrissy comments here

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

---

Discussion of DrChrissy's comment to the above thread re: Slatersteven and Jytdog

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

---

• Comment I have just had a comment here reverted - under what PaGs was this revert made? DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• @DrChrissy: Do you seriously think it's wise to comment in this section when you have a two-way interaction ban with Jytdog? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment related to Slatersteven. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Who was reporting Jytdog. Give your head a shake. If someone asked for a block over this, they would have my support. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The original title was "reporting myself". DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose block for DocChrissy breaking his interaction ban. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm about to file an AE request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Iffy. Technically the wording at WP:IBAN doesnt outright prohibit his original post as it wasnt in reference to Jytdog. Unless you consider it to be a violation of bullet point 3 by oblique means. Suggest a heavy trouting and hat this with a statement that it is a very bad idea to comment in a ANI complaint that is explicitly named after someone you are in an interaction ban with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not iffy at all. Regardless of what the title of the thread originally was, the thread was about Slatersteven's interactions with Jytdog - indeed the first two words of the thread are "User:Jytdog". DrChrissy is banned from discussing Jytdog in any way, directly or indirectly, so their comments here are quite clearly a violation of that ban, and it seems clear thet DrC is keeping a close watch on Jytdog, which is precisely the opposite of the effect an Interaction Ban is supposed to have.

DrChrissy had his two topic bans expanded because of his tendency to poke at their borders, and received an AE block for making a valueless report on another editor. And then there was this AN report, where DrChrissy managed to skate by without being blocked. DrChrissy does not seem capable of working within their sanctions and not exploring their boundaries. They should most certainly be blocked for their comments here, and some considerations ought to be given to whether DrChrissy is able to work under our policies. (And, yes, DrChrissy, I've been blocked a number of times for edit warring, which is the next thing you're going to bring up, but such tit-for-tat is not relevant here, where the topic is your behavior, and not mine.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DrChrissy. I tried to remove the initial post without escalating but it seems that was not to be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Coffee has blocked DrChrissy for a month. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

DrChrissy

Elephant in the room time. DrChrissy has been blocked three times this year, twice for a week and once for a month. He's topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed, human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed, and GMOs, broadly construed. He also has an indefinite interaction ban with Jytdog. A search fot he archives of this page will show numerous instances where DrChrissy pours petrol on the flames of disputes, and multiple failed / bad faith attempts to use process to get rid of others in content disputes. Now is not the time, as DrChrissy can't participate here for the duration of the current one-month block, but I get the strong feeling that the end of the WP:ROPE is approaching. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it has become increasingly clear in recent months that Dr. Chrissy is obsessed with their own restrictions, of which, according to WP:RESTRICT there are actually four, three arbcom restrictions and one community-imposed. If you have that many restrictions it is supposed to be an indication that you need to tread lightly and be very careful npt to violate them, and Dr. Chrissy has done the exact opposite of that again and again. We're beyond the end of the rope. So many of us have tried to talk to them, have let them off when they could have been blocked, and this is what happens. I'm not sure it's necessary to wait until the current block is over as I can think of no assurance they could give that would be believable at this point and we've all already bent over backwards trying to be fair to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I kind of like DrChrissy, but yeah. I think we're just about out of rope, and there's plenty of slack there for the ole thirteen wraps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a shame too because they seem to be a decent editor in the realm of animal welfare. Since the GMO case I, and numerous others, have advised some version of "just move on" multiple times now but it's just not taking. The options are admittedly growing slim, though I'd have a hard time supporting an indef proposal before they come back from their block and are able to make a statement of some sort.Capeo (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's going to be effectively almost a siteban (given the fact that no admin is going to want to be the person to uncork the bottle on that drama any time soon), it really is appropriate that Chrissy be here to provide whatever context they can for their actions, given the breadth of the analysis of their conduct. But yes, I agree that at some point the stack-up of sanctions, issues, and accusations of gaming the system calls for some serious scrutiny from the community. I've caught bits and pieces of this apparently consuming effort of Chrissy's to get the topic ban removed, but I hadn't realized how bad it had gotten most recently. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what is up with DrChrissy. His behavior has oddly changed from the first time I encountered him. However, I strongly suggest giving him a few more inches/centimeters of rope for a final grip. He should be warned that any further violations of his various bans--after his month long block--will almost certainly result in an indefinite site ban. I suggest this only because he really is a very good editor when he focuses on editing. Perhaps when he realizes that he is at the end of his rope, he will stop engaging in disruptive behavior. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I have held off thus far despite my irritation at his constant sniping around his numerous opponents. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with all the points made by everyone here, and agree that if he repeats the (sniping) scenario at any time after his month-long block expires, he can expect a site ban. So I recommend that this be his Final warning, and that it be posted on his talk page as such. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, it should be noted that DrChrissy was also planning to file a spurious complaint against Jytdog just a few days ago (17 February), but was saved from a likely boomerang only because he wasn't able to figure out which noticeboard to use. This editor has made some excellent content contributions, but very much needs to step back from a) past interpersonal disputes and grudges; and b) attempting to tinker with Wikipedia's user-conduct machinery. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban from administrative (user conduct) noticeboards unless summoned (eg, its about them)? Its been done before. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't get behind yet another topic ban. There comes a point that you can only try to save someone from themselves so much before it just becomes a bit silly. At this point DrChrissy is either going to get it and move on or not and likely face an indef. Capeo (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, they are already under four editing restrictions, and can't stop pushing the boundaries of them instead of just getting back to productive editing, which is the whole point of editing restrictions. A fifth is unlikely to have the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Putting up a signs, fences and warnings around a minefield isn't going to stop someone who is intent on entering it. Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes it even redoubles their determination. EEng 07:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's a difficult issue, because DrChrissy is, on the one hand, capable of very good editing, and on the other hand, apparently incapable of controlling himself when faced with restrictions. Believe me, I've tried very, very hard, many, many times, to convince him to drop various sticks, and I have gotten nowhere. I facepalmed when I saw the IBAN violation here, as well as the wikilawyering that the thread wasn't really about Jytdog. On the other hand, I also facepalmed when I logged in today to find a message on my talk page from Beyond My Ken, informing me that he had partly reverted my previous attempt to close this discussion, and had struck through part of what I, not he, had written. I still think that this discussion about DrChrissy should be closed for the time being, with no prejudice to reopening it in a month, when he will be able to respond. I note the following comments by other editors here. Guy: Now is not the time, as DrChrissy can't participate here for the duration of the current one-month block... Capeo: though I'd have a hard time supporting an indef proposal before they come back from their block and are able to make a statement of some sort. Snow: it really is appropriate that Chrissy be here to provide whatever context they can for their actions... I agree. It's not like he is going to disrupt anything before then, after all (other than perhaps triggering a block of his own user talk), so it's not an urgent matter. That said, I support a final warning being formally issued. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• The wikilawyering is what motivated me to get off my butt and file the AE request. Otherwise it was revert and hoping no one would pick up the stick. I agree that we need a formal warning and then to close this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'd very much support closing this now as well. It's never a comfortable feeling discussing an editor who can't respond. A formal final warning seems to be a bit of a, well, formality at this point but maybe that final line drawn in the sand will work where all other advice has failed. Capeo (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would have no problem with closing this, as long as someone posts the final warning that appears to be the consensus here, and for that I believe we need an uninvolved admin as a closer. Otherwise, I think everything has been said that needs to be said. However, I disagree that DrChrissy being blocked makes the commentary here awkward, since the point is not to engage in a debate with him – things having gone well beyond the point where such a debate is productive – but to inform him of the sense of the community concerning his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

God help us if the guiding principle of dispute resolution becomes that an accused editor can be denied an opportunity to respond to accusations just because someone else takes it upon themselves to decide that it would be unproductive. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahem...

Can someone uninvolved please close this and issue a formal warning as above? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Agree, consensus seems pretty rock solid that this is the last final chance, and DC is probably fortunate to be getting it. TimothyJosephWood 11:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as the uninvolved person understands that it's not (just) TBAN and IBAN violations we're talking about here, it's the myriad other bad-faith and disruptive behaviors he indulges in, including turning up in noticeboard discussions only to stir *beep* and make thinly-veiled snipes. It's his general gratuitous childish disruptive behavior and unrequested interference that everyone is thoroughly sick of. (If I'm not mistaken.) I personally wouldn't mind if Guy or any other admin who has commented or who is familiar with the case posted the final warning. We're pretty much beyond standing on ceremony at this point. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. A good many of DrChrissy's AE blocks were the result of them inserting themselves into conversations involving editors that they had past conflicts with. The most recent example being where they dropped a snide (and factually incorrect) comment at an AE they had absolutely no involvement in other than the fact that one of the editors involved was part of the GMO case. It's this following perceived opponents around that's been at the heart of most of DrChrissy's sanctions since the GMO case. Capeo (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning note on their page here. I have no other opinion on DrChrissy, except that I truly hope they understand THIS is the last straw for them. I couldn't made it more clear I feel in my comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That works. The only thing I see that may be missing is a direct reference to AE in addition to AN/I as they have twice been blocked there for filing spurious reports. Though, if DrChissy tries to wikilawyer around the warning by saying there was no mention of AE then there's really no hope anyway. Capeo (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That's where the phrase "other general bad-faith, disruptive behavior" comes into play. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for issuing the warning, and thanks also to Beeblebrox for the added comment. I think all of that was very well-presented. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Horizonlove

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

---

It is with a great deal of reluctance that I have to report the editor User:Horizonlove to the administrators. They have done great work on articles on black entertainers and musicians, an aspect that is greatly under represented here. Unfortunately, the attitude of the editor towards others has been very argumentative and combative over the past three months. Most recently here where the editor engaged in an edit war and failed to reach consensus with @Rebbing:. In addition, they falsely accused the editor @Jennica: of Wikihounding here. On other occasions has taken a very argumentative tone without assuming any WP:GOODFAITH towards other editors, such as here towards @Jax 0677:. Last month the editor was asked by @Magnolia677: to provide reliable references for the Soul II Soul page and behaved very dismissive (edit summary: reply to this stupidity) towards an experienced editor. He subsequently accused the same editor of Wikihounding here. In December, the editor had a conflict with @TheMagnificentist: on the Kym Mazelle article that led this this WP:3RR report (without sanction). Following the editor indicated that 'I'm here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you'. This discussion was halted after an intervention from the admin @Anachronist:. Today, after the issues on the Talk page of the Deliverance (Joi Cardwell album) I left this notice in that hope that the editor would engage more constructively with others. Instead I was accused of 'jumping in and taking sides'. I hope that one of the administrators can clearly outline policy to the editor and explain that levelling unwarranted accusations towards others and goes in against us striving to reach consensus. I sincerely hope that the editor will continue in his work and is not discouraged by this report. Karst (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This is very ridicious. "Unfortunately, the attitude of the editor towards others has been very argumentative and combative over the past three months." I have always been open to conversation with editors and have discussed many topics with them. To put forth what looks like a lot of bad history is very unfair and inappropriate. I never accused of User:Rebbing of Wikihounding, I accused User:Jennica of Wikihounding because every edit that I made was followed by him/her. Evidence of that are these pages: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and on a discussion [48] where I did not name her or anything related but she commented in after I open the discussion. Wikihounding is defined as 'the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.' This is how I felt when she kept coming out of nowhere and making edits behind me. She may have edited other pages, which is okay, but there were specifics edits that were only made after I edited on said-pages.

To address the situation with User:Jax 0677, I did assume good faith at first. When I began editing the Joi Cardwell pages, he soon began creating blank pages for the purpose of redirecting them elsewhere. The history logs of these pages [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], support that. I talked to him on his talk page here and asked him to stop doing that. It is very misleading for to reader. However, he continued to create and redirect pages. So I opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Redirect talk page and discussed it. The consensus was that it was a "terrible practice" and User:Plantdrew talk to Jax 0677 on his talk page and told him so here.

"Last month the editor was asked by @Magnolia677: to provide reliable references for the Soul II Soul page and behaved very dismissive" is a lie. User:Magnolia677 acted very combative and dismissive towards me. After I retrieved several sources and information for the page, he kept removing information from the page without discussing it or adding a "needs verfication/citation tag" as editors are encouraged to do. And in my free opinion, the process was very stupid because he kept asking for source after source; and challenging each thing that I added. The page's history log supports that. When I started editing Kym Mazelle, a page that User:TheMagnificentist has edited several times, he behaved in a way that asserted himself as owner of the page. I talked to him on his page here to address the situation. User:Anachronist evaluated the situation and decided that TheMagnificentist behaved inappropriately which almost resulted in a block of TheMagnificentist. Also note that TheMagnificentist has been blocked before.

"Today, after the issues on the Talk page of the Deliverance (Joi Cardwell album) I left this notice in that hope that the editor would engage more constructively with others." is strange to say because I don't understand what would have lead Karst there to begin with considering that he/her had no visible interactions with those users. "Instead I was accused of 'jumping in and taking sides'" would be a very accurate statement because Karst did not evaluate the situation. He immediately came to me as if I was the bad guy and very appropriately to him on my talk page. I have not violated any rules or policies of Wikipedia. Time after time, I have acted in good faith, been productive, retrieved resources, talked out disagreement, and discussed whatever situations I did not understand on the appropriate talk pages. To say "I hope that one of the administrators can clearly outline policy to the editor and explain that levelling unwarranted accusations towards others and goes in against us striving to reach consensus" is contradiction in itself because the Wikipedia policy was made to guide us editors as well as protect us from the verbal attacks and dismissive behavior of other editors, which time and time again I followed. The history is all there to support what I have said. Horizonlove (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note - Also when this is over and done, I would request that users Magnolia677 and Karst be somehow banned or restricted from interacting with me. While I am aware that editors are free to edit whichever pages they choose, whenever these editors get involved with something that involves me, it creates a problem that is impossible to settle with them because they (specifically Magnolia677) are very dismissive as seen here. [That wasn't first time, just the most recent] It is very discouraging to continue editing and have your contributions challenged even after you have added sources, but still they are labeled with the undeserving { BLP sources } and { refimprove } tags. Horizonlove (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Horizonlove apologized to me but just above accused me again of "following their every edit" which is untrue. I saw that they were adding songwriting credits to Personnel sections on album pages so I checked a few of their other edits to see if they were doing it. They created a new album page, which popped up in this new albums page, which I check nightly. After editing on a page they created, Horizonlove took to my talk page again to accuse me of following/hounding them. I appreciated the apology but by their comments above, they've practically rescinded on that apology, apparently, since they still believe I was hounding them. They are taking the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and twisting them to fit their opinions. Horizonlove also does not seem to read what I type to them because I told them I follow the album style talk page - yet they still seem to think I am following them. Horizonlove clearly didn't check my contribution history because I was not targeting them. I am certainly allowed to check other's contribution history and if you can't handle the fact that people can, maybe wikipedia isn't the site for you. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Jennica Please read carefully. It's outlined. I said, "This is how I felt when she kept coming out of nowhere and making edits behind me. She may have edited other pages, which is okay, but there were specifics edits that were only made after I edited on said-pages." If you feel the apology was not genuine, you are free to feel that way. I can't control how you feel. If I did not mean the apology, I would have never posted it on your talk page, even after you dismissed me as "I don't really wish to discuss this since I didn't do anything wrong." But right after that, you said to me, "I checked your edits after I saw you are apparently obsessed with listing songwriters in Personnel sections." How some of people feel may not be how you feel. An clear example of that was when you kept removing songwriters in Personnel sections, even though you felt it was redundant and I did not. And honestly, I still do not think it is redundant.

Personally, I don't feel the need to check other people's edits, nor do I have time. I think that it is constant violation to keep looking at people's contributions and following what they did. "They are taking the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and twisting them to fit their opinions." is a lie because I have never done that and you know that. After I accused you [Jennica] of hounding, I gave you a quote description of Wikihounding which I felt you were doing. And even then, I was very polite to you when I approached you and said, "Please stop following me! Thank you". Horizonlove (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You said I was following "every edit" you made. It is simply not true and I resent being accused of it in the first place. I already explained the redundancies with the songwriting thing. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The point was to address the accusations of Karst when s/he said, "they falsely accused the editor @Jennica: of Wikihounding here." I address why I accused you of Wikihounding. I'm not trying to be rude, please read more carefully. I have always chosen my words carefully, despite a few typos that we are all entitled to like when Karst posted that I said "I'm here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you". The intended comment was "I'm [not] here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you" as the tone of the conversation follows. Horizonlove (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support any sanctions visited upon Horizon. Clear and egregious battleground behavior. The conversation on Jennica's talk page was especially disgusting; when an editor tells you not to post on their talk page, you don't immediately post there again multiple times. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note - The editor does not own the talk page even if it under their name. Anyone is still free to communicate with the editor to reach a consensus or make a request. It's funny how you say "especially disgusting" when time and time again I was polite with "Please" and "thank you", and was willing to open a discussion with Jennica despite being dismissed. Or did you miss that part? Frankly, you do not know what you are talking about and I mean that very politely. You just started editing in August 2016 and you don't why we are here now. Horizonlove (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[58] "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to)."

Your comments were neither helpful, administrator attention, nor a project notice or communication. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Comment - Key word being usual, it does not say prohibited or not allowed. Once again and very politely, you don't know what you are talking about. "Your comments were neither helpful..." is strange to say because it was a discussion, not a debate. Later in conversation, resolution did happen and we were moving forward after we had a discussion. If that's not helpful, then kindly give me your description of helpful and communication. Horizonlove (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - do note (if it means anything) that Jennica has a custom watchlist of several users (including me) here. - TheMagnificentist 12:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That is perfectly normal for the gnomish work that Jennica does. Quite a few people (including myself) watch your edits for reasons that are not really relevant to this ANI. Karst (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - @TheMagnificentist: - Hi. I can't remember why I put you on there. I honestly didn't know this list was public. I removed you but it was most likely because of gnomish reasons. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note - I can't see Jennica's watchlist. I also can not verify that what s/he said is true, not that I'm calling them a liar. I'm stating what lined up with my own edits. @Karst: I've noticed that you and I'm assuming the other person is Magnolia677 watch my edits. And I've noticed that each time one of you come back, it creates a unreasonable problem that I try to solve involving one of you. It's almost like bullying because I am constantly challenged by one of you as with the Kym Mazelle page. And even when I move on because there is no reasoning with both of you, you will come to the next page over time. If this is your way of helping, please considering who you are helping and how does it come across. Most you and/or Magnolia677 argue about is sources. But when they are provided, you find something else to challenge. The history supports that. Horizonlove (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

When an issue is raised, the point is to engage with the other editors to resolve the issue. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Unfortunately, the comments in this report have indicated that you continue to harbour a battleground mentality. I strongly suggest you follow the advice that @JaconaFrere: indicated on your Talk page and refrain from calling other editors 'immature' as you did here. Karst (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Karst - "Wikipedia is a collaborative effort." Obviously I know that because I engaged in conversation with editors throughout history. "Unfortunately, the comments on this report have indicated that you continue to harbour a battleground mentality." One person doesn't know what they are talking about as we've never engaged in any prior communication. You and Magnolia677 are working as team against me, so that's bias. And Jennica only commented in response to my comment which was in response to your accusations. "I strongly suggest you follow the advice that JaconaFrere indicated on your Talk page and refrain from calling other editors 'immature' as you did". If certain editors behaved nicely and helped, instead of constantly reverting without discussing a revert, I would call them immature. After all, that is what an article's talk page is there for. But none of them bothered to discuss (before reverting or the reasons for wanting to revert) on the said articles' talk pages. That part is very true and you know that. Horizonlove (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The main issue here is how you engage in the converations with others and treat these interactions as a battleground. The aim of a discussion on the Talk page is to reach consensus, not to claim ownership, as you did on the Kym Mazelle page. Here you noted 'I would appreciate if information like this would not be abrutly removed without discussing it further'. I posted a reply to that post, explaining the issues with the article on 22 December. Instead of discussing the issues on the Taslk page you continued to edit the page in the first week of January that resulted in a number of reverts. And this is one specific example. I have nothing further to add in light of the retirement notice. I will leave this now for an admin to decide on the course of action here. Karst (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - WRT {{Joi Cardwell}}, I recommended that Horizonlove write the articles before he puts them in the navbox, since at the time, some of the articles at had nothing to do with Cardwell. Even now, some of the articles are redirects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - "I recommended that Horizonlove write the articles before he puts them in the navbox". I was trying to write the articles but you kept reverting before I could finish. "Even now, some of the articles are redirects." That is very true because you created blank pages [some of which are still blank] and put redirect tags on them. The process of it was pointless to create false pages especially when nothing was linking there as I discussed here. It's a process that you are still doing. I can't write the pages if I have to keep going back to fix reverts. Horizonlove (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment - Horizonlove, if you're having trouble with others reverting your page while you're trying to edit, consider using the sandbox instead of making repeated edits to the article, you can get everything the way you want it and edit only one time. Jacona (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Reply - @JaconaFrere:, it doesn't matter anymore. I've retired from editing and that edit/mention was very inappropriately "thanked" by @Magnolia677:. Now if you can't consider that to be extremely rude, then something is really wrong here. Horizonlove (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Sure, that's rude - but not unusual for Wikipedia or for many other walks of life. If you're going to turn tail and run whenever you're treated rudely, people will learn that their bad behavior works for them and you can expect much, much more of the same. But from a practical standpoint, you've been rude yourself, when you've been corrected you have shown an unwillingness to learn policy and discussed issues, you have rather lashed out in anger and made articles into battlegrounds. Perhaps in time you'll learn more on how to work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. We could use constructive help. Jacona (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• NB - This constitutes a personal attack? Karst (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No. Kleuske (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Das osmnezz

User: Das osmnezz has recently returned from a 2-week block for disruptive editing (adding personal opinions into football articles), and they show no understanding of why they were blocked, as they've continued doing it, see [59]. As a background, during their editing history they have been:

• Blocked for using multiple accounts
• Repeatedly warned against creating articles about non-notable footballers- at least 5 times on their talkpage
• Repeatedly warned against adding own personal opinions into articles, and blocked for 2 weeks
• Blocked for copyright violations

This continuation of unhelpful behaviour has led me to believe that they aren't willing to listen to advice, and lack the competency required to edit Wikipedia. I am therefore requesting an indefinite block per WP:CIR. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've reviewed their contributions since being blocked. They have not socked since they understood what this means, have not inserted any new copyvios that I can see, and are not writing personal opinion. Yes they have created a new article on a probably non-notable person but nobody (including the OP here) has seen fit to PROD or AfD it so it's not obviously and instantly egregious. Their writing is poor and their grasp of WP process is sketchy but there is no need for a block because they are not breaking any procedures. An indefinite block per WP:CIR is effectively a ban and needs to be argued as such. Have you tried to make a genuine relationship with this user and educate them as to what they are doing wrong? (Hint: I know the answer to my own question....) Sorry, but even if we do end up banning this person the process takes a little more time than this.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Kim Dent-Brown Yes I've tried multiple times to explain/help, but no repsonses and they blank their talkpage periodically. See for example [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. Clear case of long-term not listening. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict If you haven't found any evidence adding personal opinions, then you've missed some things. For example, you'll note addition of flowery language to Bobir Davlatov (removed here). This is part what got Osmnezz (talk · contribs), their first account blocked, and they only just got off a two week block for exactly that sort of thing. On top of that there's the problem that they don't seem to understand the limitations of their grasp on the English language. Their English isn't terrible, but it's bad enough that most of their edits require some language corrections. Not to mention the fact that they regularly revert my language corrections to their edits. I've attempted to engage with this editor since their first indefinite block was rescinded in October, and have been consistently ignored. In their unblock request Das osmnezz said: [If] I am unblocked, you will never have to warn me or block me again. Since then, they've been blocked three times over, and have ignored almost every warning they've been given. Under these circumstances, I respectfully submit that this editor doe not have the necessary competence to usefully contribute. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess after all. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Indef block: For so many times, it appears that this user has been warned not to post personal opinions on various articles, including on the sports players. It has been busted for an incident like this before, and seems to be still breaking its promises right after its block has been lifted. Maybe a longer to indefinite block would be necessary to prevent this troublemaker from committing any further offense. SportsLair talk) 20:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Supposing I am blocked indefinitely/banned will my articles be deleted? Das osmnezz (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Das osmnezz: No they won't be automatically deleted. I'm wondering why you can't just stop inserting your opinions into articles? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• For my newest article(after Bobir Davlatov), Kota Ranger FC doesn't have any inserted opinions in there(except what the person in the reference stated) and, like User:Kim Dent-Brown stated was that i didn't do any copyright violations/sockpuppet accounts and stopped undoing edits by User:Sir Sputnik. After Bobir Davlatov I stopped writing my own opinions in the articles(if I accidentally do it please notify me or block me if I persist-I won't clear my talk page) ever since Bobir Davlatov. As mentioned, you have the complete right to block me if i persist.Das osmnezz (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but why should I believe you? You've promised before that there wouldn't be any further problems, yet here we are. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Further comment: It is somewhat likely that this user, Das osmnezz (talk · contribs) who is doing all this, may be suspected to be a sock puppet of Osmnezz (talk · contribs). If there is any checkuser who could look into this, there just might be a way to put an end to this reigning chaos. SportsLair (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The two are confirmed confirmed to be the same. The editor was permitted to return to editing using their second on the condition that they were restricted to using only one account. (See this). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Recently,(since February 2017) I haven't even undid your corrections to my pages. Also, I stopped adding my personal analysis on post-Bobir Davlatov articles (see Kota Ranger FC and Francisco Ondo). What's more, I stopped making footballers who have never played in a fully professional league or national team ever.I know I have been constantly a problem but have since stopped.Das osmnezz (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Move Human like you activity from User:176.33.80.23

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

---

In the last hour 176.33.80.23 (talk · contribs) re-instating edits by sock-puppet Wikisiki999 (talk · contribs). Compare the contributions, and note previous Human like you edits on those pages. Perhaps an IP block? Batternut (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Obvious sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible logged-out editing to evade topic ban

The following is suspicious, but I am not 100% sure that it passes the duck test.

On 18 September 2016 User:Jed Stuart was indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories.[65]

On 19 February 2017 User:2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA started posting to Talk:Electronic harassment, making the same basic point that Jed Stuart was making before the topic ban; that we should treat the opinions of those who believe that they are victims of electronic harassment with the same weight as the opinions of mental health professionals who believe that their experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis. Examples:[66][67][68][69]

So, do I hear a quack, or am I hearing quacking where there isn't any? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You know if you wore a tinfoil hat you wouldnt hear subliminal quacking.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Just took a look at their contributions. SPA-IP which exists only to push an agenda. Largely irrelevant as to the duck test, what they want is unlikely to happen. Continued pushing will probably end up with a block sooner rather than later. From the article talkpage history I suspect they are more likely related to Beautifulpeoplelikeyou who also had a bee in their bonnet about state terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bananas? 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• I semi-protected the talk page due to obvious evasion of sanctions. A review of past talk page edits indicates that this will not be in any way detrimental, one month for now and we could make it indefinite without any obvious downside. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Owww 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not me. And that is not the point I was attempting to make. Typical mischaracterization of what I was attempting to say. I am reading that Talk page though and one day you may regret treating me with such belligerence. How many times have I been accused of doing that? I can't be bothered to find out.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If you say that 2A00:23C4:7101:3000:19B2:235D:CE80:73FA is not you I will take your word for it. As for "belligerence", I would not be doing you any favors if I were to mislead you into thinking that there is the slightest hope that your theories will ever be included in any Wikipedia article without you first finding a reliable source as defined by WP:MEDRS to back them up. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I was not attempting to assert a personal theory. I was attempting to integrate information from the Washington Post into the article and also achieve a more NPOV than an article weighted 100% to not well researched psychiatric opinion in an environment in which many people think otherwise. I was banned from the article on the basis of your and others false accusations and am angry now that I was banned without being given the chance to refute all that.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want. It is not going into any Wikipedia article without a WP:MEDRS-compliant source backing it up, which the Washington Post article[70] is not. You were topic banned indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories per this ANI discussion. To your credit, you have obeyed the topic ban, but the fact that you seem to have learned nothing from that ANI discussion tells me that the topic ban needs to stay in place. Of course you can appeal the ban (see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community) but any appeal will be rejected until you show some understanding of why so many people supported your topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not the IP was Jed, Jed's actions in this this thread are almost certainly not covered under BANEX. The most recent comment is a blatant attempt to justify the behaviour that led to the ban. @Jed Stuart: Just to be clear, you are allowed comment here to either deny or admit to having engaged in sockpuppetry to get around your TBAN. You are not allowed loudly proclaim that the ban was not justified to begin with and you never did anything wrong, unless you are specifically appealing the ban itself. This thread is not, at least right now, about appealing your ban; it is about whether you violated it by socking. You have denied this accusation. The community will decide whether your denial is credible. But if you continue to violate your ban by discussing it in a manner like above it will not matter whether you had already violated or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri makes a good point. Jed Stuart, I'm not going to ask for sanctions myself, but you should be aware that your last comment was a violation of your topic ban. Take this as a warning and try to abide by it. And please, please try to realize why you were topic banned. I would like nothing more than to be able to support you if/when you eventually appeal it, but it doesn't look like I can from your last comment.

(I can't believe I forgot to watchlist that page with my alt, so I've been unaware of it as I rarely use my main account these days.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC

@MjolnirPants: I don't know quite how it works, but I notice your alt acocunt has email enabled -- does this mean you use a different email with your alt account? My watchlist mostly functions to send me email notifications, so I tend to (fallaciously) assume that's how everyone else uses theirs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I wont let Guy Macon goad me into any more discussion of the EH article. How do we clear up whether I am socking or not? I know that people with a similar petspective to mine on that article do often attempt to win that way, but I dont think of doing that as it would be a difficult victory to hold and might even be bad for ones health.Jed Stuart (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart: That's the spirit. And (although I don't necessarily agree that this was happening here), if you see someone apparently trying to goad you into violating your editing restriction, a good idea is to politely ask them to stop, and if they refuse then you can notify the admin who closed the ban discussion and ask them to intervene. (In theory, you should be able to open an ANI thread on them, but I tried this before -- it frequently doesn't work.) Obviously goading someone into violating their own editing restriction despite warnings to stop is a blockable offense. You're actually lucky in that you are only subject to a TBAN. With an IBAN it's much worse because even mentioning the username of the person you are banned from interacting is a clear violation that can get you immediately blocked, even if another user is disruptively bringing up their name in an unrelated dispute. In your case, simply saying I don't want to discuss that with you; it would probably be a violation of my editing restriction would likely do the trick, but if you were subject to an IBAN and you said the same thing ... don't ask. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Persistent additions of uncited ethnicity categories by IP

5.69.225.209 has been adding ethnicity categories to BLP articles in which there is no claim of ethnicity.--TM 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Namiba take a look at the articles photo on the cited websites as proof of ethnicity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.225.209 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Photos are not sources. If you cannot prove that someone is of a certain ancestry with written sources, don't include those categories. It is very disruptive and violates WP:BLP and WP:CAT.--TM 00:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack by 92slim

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

---

Thoroughly unwarranted personal attack by User:92slim in the edit summary here. He's been blocked for such at least a couple of times before, most recently a couple of months ago. Largoplazo (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that after the block the block notice was removed and the blocking administrator was called a buthurt dickhead. I'm curious if that should be grounds to increase the block since that behaviour was not even remotely acceptable.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging blocking admin Ad Orientem. I myself have wondered the same thing. SkyWarrior 04:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I get the sense that the user is taking communication (including about this very discussion) via templates as a personal affront. Anyway, I left the user a note about maintaining civility. El_C 04:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Block extended to 1 month with talk page editing privileges revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor WP:NOTHERE

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

---

User:OrangeSkunk has garnered quite a trail of questionable edits, including [71], [72], [73], and [74]. They clearly do not plan on participating in a clear, concise manner; which is necessary on Wikipedia. Recommend a block based on WP:NOTHERE. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 11:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Funny Boomer Vial, because I was in the middle of making an ANI report for the same exact situation... Here is some more context of what they've been doing...

They've been making WP:AIV reports like this, this and this. Furthermore, they've been "warning" users (when they're already blocked, apparently) like this and this and saying that they "hate" editors, seen here. They've also been recording vandals that they find in a list that can be seen at User:OrangeSkunk/False Edits, calling them "false editors".

I'm thinking that this is a cut and clear competence issue, but I am not sure how to deal with this, but it would be good if an admin could look into this further. Thanks. 172.58.41.54 (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Poor English, and perhaps limited competence, but not WP:NOTHERE as mainspace edits show positive intentions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I've also came across this, this and... "Your edits are huggle. (HG)"...? 172.58.41.54 (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I think it's a competence issue, and possibly a very young person. Anyone feel like offering some help and guidance? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BITE, I wrote the following on that editor's talk page: "You've made some edits that don't make sense. This has been noticed by several people. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, everything you do is checked by others. If you make too many mistakes at first, people assume you're not here to help, and you can be shut out. This isn't like a blog or a forum; this place has tough standards. Please, click on the "Visit the Teahouse" button above, and talk to people to find out how this place works. Thanks." They seemed confused, not hostile, and hammering on them with warning templates wasn't helping. John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm really starting to think this is not the right place for this user based off this AIV report: [75]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: They're behavior hasn't improved one bit. Another editor gave them a strong warning/some advice, which was prior to the AIV report that RickinBaltimore just linked above. Would now recommend an indefinite WP:CIR block. This is only getting worse. Also may I ask why they're using the WP:HUGGLE tag in their reports...? 172.58.32.84 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They just did this, in which Widr reverted. 172.56.39.33 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And that's enough for me. Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. If it's a kid, I'd welcome them back in a few years when they mature enough to work with the project. If it's someone doing this to be a nuisance, then enough is enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I can't see any realistic alternative right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Category:Jews

Please see the User_talk:Debresser#LOL section on my talkpage, which links to an article on a blog,[76] which warns about organizations that will be contacted and steps that will be taken to influence Wikipedia on a specific issue. In addition to linking to my Wikipedia and Facebook accounts. Indeed, since that time various single purpose IP editors or editors who were inactive till recently have tried to change that category page.[77][78][79][80][81][82] I don't know what the customary steps are in such a situation, but I would recommend to check for socks and perhaps protect this article full protection for some time. Debresser (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that I think the blog author doxxed you, if I know my terms correctly. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I put in a request at RPP, in the future that is where requests for page protections should go. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've declined it as semi won't do much. Warn the other editor for edit warring and see how it goes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Will do, and let's keep this open 24-48 hours. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that a violation of WP:MEAT? Someone should probably contact the writer of the blog and inform them about that policy. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As if they would care. In any case, this is turning out to be a good thing after all, because all those problematic editors are coming out of hiding to make an edit on the category page, so now we'll know their identities. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

On a very related note, possibly with direct relation to this issue, User:Jeffgr9 decided to make the same edit on more category pages.[83][84][85][86] I reverted him and warned him on his talkpage,[87] but he decided to edit war about it.[88][89][90][91] Debresser (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, of what are you accusing me? I made edits as per the recent RfC & survey consensus that confirms that Jews should be listed under being of Asian/Southwest Asian descent, because Jews, at their core, are a Semitic People and thus a Southwest Asian people, like Arabs. I did not edit war--edit warring would be continued reverts without due cause/explanation. I provided clear explanations as well as your violations of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Just accept the heavily cited verdict and move on; Jews are a Semitic (Afro-Asiatic, Southwest Asian, North-Northeast African, "Middle Eastern," etc.) People. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Add to this User:The Human Trumpet Solo, who made only 7 edits between that Rfc and the new uprise of the PW:MEAT issue, and now takes an active position in this edit war as well.[92][93][94][95][96] Debresser (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Overturn Rfc

I just did some research. The Rfc on Category talk:People of Jewish descent, which is related to this issue, was loaded with WP:MEAT. Regarding its closure: 1. The Rfc was evenly balanced, with 7:7. 2. It was a first-time closure by a non-admin. 3. The closing statement is internally inconsistent, claiming at the same time to reach "keep" and also to keep a consensus version, where consensus version from 2013 was not to have the category. 4. In addition there is the WP:MEAT issue which I raised in this WP:ANI thread: User:ChronoFrog is a blocked sock, User:Bubbecraft never edited after that discussion, User:Musashiaharon made only 8 edits between that discussion and this WP:ANI issue, User:2603:3024:1818:3B00:CCF9:AFE5:1187:21BE was a one-edit account, User:PA Math Prof made no edits between that Rfc and this WP:ANI issue, so 5 out of the 7 "keep"s should be disqualified. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

To overturn the RFC, you can go to WP:AN. Just to comment a bit more concise why the RFC close was piss-poor: When the people involved confused the Jewish people, Jews as a whole and Jews as an individual, it's clear the close was not correct. The Jewish religion is from the Middle East, so if there was a categories of religions from the ME, then put Judaism there. This category is identifying people who are Jewish, in other words it's an individual identification. That means it goes by the individual. So out of the 15 Million Jews worldwide, can we label ALL of them as being from the Middle East? It is quite ludicrous how because of POV pushers with 30 edits to their belt (not that that means much, but it shows SPA and meating) we are now labeling ALL 15 million Jews individually as being from the Middle East. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this outing and WP:MEAT thread is the logical place to keep the issue of the Rfc as well. I am not going into the arguments of the Rfc itself, although I personally think you are right; I am just saying that the Rfc was decided by WP:MEAT, and should be overturned for that reason alone (and a little bit also because of the other reasons I mentioned). Debresser (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe not everyone has the time to edit as much as you do? I do this in my spare time, which I have very little of these days. I've pared down my focus to topics that are on my watchlist, this being one of them. This seems to be little more than a witch hunt.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps regarding you personally. I always assume good faith, and you have always been a fair editor, even if we disagreed. But that Rfc was clearly influenced, in a decisive way. And your edit war of today was also ill advised.Debresser (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've only reverted you once, and the sole reason I did so is because your revert was a guideline violation. And you already tried to overturn the decision, and failed. See here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive286#RFC_Closure_review_Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent.23Survey The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That discussion did not mention the WP:MEAT issue at all! And in addition it was mostly off-topic. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"But that Rfc was clearly influenced, in a decisive way." The only evidence you have is the relative inactivity of most of the involved editors, including myself, and the fact that one editor (ChronoFrog) abandoned his account and became an IP editor which, although against the rules, doesn't discount his !vote. Furthermore, the survey was decided by !votes i.e. the strength of arguments, not numerical majority.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The numbers very much influenced the outcome, obviously. Let's start with the fact that the Rfc would not have been opened at all, if not the WP:MEAT pushed for an Rfc in spite of the previous consensus on the talkpage. Moreover, this was the first close of a non-admin, and he should never, never, never have undertaken to close such a complex, widely discussed and evenly balanced Rfc. Even though he referred to the strength of arguments, he surely would not have done that if the numbers were as clear cut, 7:2, as they should have been. In addition, even though this is besides the point, since the Rfc was invald because of the participation of so many WP:MEAT editors, I disagree with his conclusion, and firmly hold that based on the same policies and guidelines, notably WP:BURDEN, this Rfc should have been closed in the opposite way. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the RFC was on Jewish Descent, not on all cats with Jews. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw the discussion from a few years back, but no final decision was ever made. Everybody involved simply stuck to their guns and reverted each other continuously. You also tagged every one of the editors who participated in that dispute and most of them did not show up. Lastly, you have no real evidence that there was any meat puppetry involved, only conjecture. And again, even if your allegations were true, it was an !vote wherein strength of arguments overrides majority opinion. Wikipedia would be a very dangerous place if the reverse were true.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

On that note, how do I know you and Sir Joseph aren't working together?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Making sure you are aware of this. The allegations of meatpuppetry should not be dismissed lightly. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vukovar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.81.0 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be about this post. It should be noted that the IP has not opened a discussion on the talk page. As this is a content dispute this thread could be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Put the right who have logged not his version

I'm sorry? Could you please explain the issue? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

its ok now i mean who log in wikipedia and who use revision history of wikipedia not only ip,sorry for my english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.81.0 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There was some rather nasty edit-warring between two sets of IPs (the OP here represents one side of the edit-war, but probably the one more in line with previous consensus on the article). I've semiprotected the article and reverted it to a version from some weeks ago, before the edit-warring started. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.81.0 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Hi me again i want you tell about provider services internet in my country ...my ip change every day (every 24 h) but if i want now change ip i only restart router and wait 2 minutes i change ip, maybe in his country same and change this. Bye and Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.81.0 (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Azarbarzin and BLP

Azarbarzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account with a weird grudge against BLP Reza Aslan. His contributions to the encyclopedia consist of adding primary-sourced, poorly-sourced, and/or synthetic material to the BLP with the aim of casting aspersions on the subject (eg. [97], [98]) and of WP:IDHT "but it's true" comments on the talk page, despite previous warnings and explanations about sourcing.

I brought this here because even though WP:3RRBLP clearly applies, given that the user is synthesizing sources with the deliberate aim of making a living article subject look bad, I'm frankly tired of him spamming my user page. Can someone else deal with this?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I've reverted their recent re-addition since it did not seem to be supported by the sources provided, and left the user a EW warning on their talk, since it doesn't appear they have been warned against warring previously. That the subject is on this advisory council may in fact be both true and relevant, but the editing pattern as a whole, with additions such as this, and this (reinserted in some form I believe four times now), is pretty clearly aimed at disparaging the subject of the article. TimothyJosephWood 20:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I may be interpreting this incorrectly, so my apologies; but it may be a good idea to redirect this conversation towards complying with WP:NOTCENSORED. On the other hand, if the information that they're adding isn't supported by the refferences that they are providing, than that's an entirely separate issue... 172.56.39.33 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to Reza Aslan's Talk page [[99]] I have provided ample sources for Aslan being on the advisory board of the NIAC:

https://www.niacouncil.org/about-niac/staff-board/
https://www.niacouncil.org/message-reza-aslan/

Along with earnest effort to resolve this edit war. Azarbarzin (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick glance at the talk page here [[100]] testifies to the numerous efforts I've made to resolve this. Azarbarzin (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

To the IP, as a good rule of thumb, if naked people or curse words aren't involved, chances are WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't apply, although the mistake is understandable, since it's probably the single most misinterpreted policy on all of Wikipedia.

To the more general issue, I addressed the user's content concerns on my talk page, which hopefully will help clear things up some. I do think they're editing in good faith, but I also think they're fighting against a lot of policies that they don't yet fully understand, and that's probably the core issue here.

To Azarbarzin, I would stress that edit warring, and serial reverting, even if it's done with the best intentions will almost certainly result in a block. I would also point out that the reason we take biographies of living persons so very seriously, is because it's one of only a few things on the project that can actually get Wikipedia sued. So this would probably not be as serious if it weren't on a biography, but it happens to be, and we always have to be very careful in those areas, and hold ourselves to the highest standards for content. TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As this is ANI, I will argue about that last point. BLP is not so much concern about the WMF being sued; rather, BLP is based on a concern that we "get the article right" per the usual policies. In particular, BLP articles must not be used by passers-by to coatrack factoids asserting negativity about living persons. Azarbarzin must understand that repeating attacks against Reza Aslan will result in a block. The last text added by Azarbarzin was of the form "[BLP subject] is on advisory board of X. X is bad." People can be clueless about a lot of things at Wikipedia, but repeating such muck racking by association will result in blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While the community is obviously committed to the integrity of every article, the reason that COPYVIO and BLP are exceptions to 3RR, is precisely because the WMF gets sued over it. TimothyJosephWood 00:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Azarbarzin must understand that repeating attacks against Reza Aslan will result in a block -- Kindly explain why making a reference to Aslan being on the Advisory board of NIAC is perceived as an attack

Azarbarzin (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Quoting wikipedia:

Lobbying controversy and defamation lawsuit

In 2007, Arizona-based Iranian-American journalist Hassan Daioleslam began publicly asserting that NIAC was lobbying on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In response, Parsi sued him for defamation. As a result of the lawsuit, many internal documents were released, which former Washington Times correspondent Eli Lake stated "raise questions" about whether the organization had violated U.S. lobbying regulations. NIAC responded that it is in "full compliance with all regulations and laws" and published all of its tax returns online to back up its claim. Andrew Sullivan responded to the story in The Atlantic, suggesting the motive of the story was to "smear" Parsi’s reputation.

In September 2012, U.S. Federal District Court Judge John D. Bates threw out the libel suit against Daioleslam on the grounds that "NIAC and Parsi had failed to show evidence of actual malice, either that Daioeslam acted with knowledge the allegations he made were false or with reckless disregard about their accuracy." However, Judge Bates also noted that "nothing in this opinion should be construed as a finding that [Daioleslam’s] articles were true. [Daioleslam] did not move for summary judgement on that ground." On April 9, 2013, Judge Bates ordered NIAC to cover a portion of Daioleslam's legal expenses.

References

Does that qualify as an attack? Azarbarzin (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the above is from National Iranian American Council which does not mention Reza Aslan and which is irrelevant for this discussion. I mentioned that it is unacceptable to add text like "[BLP subject] is on advisory board of X. X is bad." That is known as synthesis where an editor joins two statements to convey a conclusion. In this case the conclusion is unstated—readers are left to infer that the person is bad because they are associated with a bad thing. Single purpose accounts often try to add negativity to articles with such techniques. The attacks end up being removed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

NIAC does mention Reza Aslan as being on their Advisory Board. Aslan's membership in NIAC is deleted from his wiki page. That could not possibly be considered an attack. Please check my edit history. Single purpose account does NOT apply to me. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is pretty quickly becoming a discussion on article content, rather than editor behavior. Azarbarzin seems to understand fairly well at this point that edit warring is not the way to decide this issue, and discussion is. They went so far as to open an RfC a couple of weeks ago in fact, which could probably use more active participation (BTW, hint hint), but at the end of the day is objectively the correct thing to do in a content dispute. They seem to be actively discussing in good faith, and not reverting, so we can probably let this run its course on the article talk without the immediate need for any sanctions.

Overall, learning what counts as a reliable source and how to resist the fairly natural inclination of writers, as writers, to WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, is pretty run-of-the-mill for new editors, especially particularly motivated ones.

As a side note Roscelese, while warning templates are often useful, its usually more useful in situations where new editors respond to literally every single warning you give them with a question, to follow that up with more than repetitive boiler plate templating. Edit summaries like this gets more and more ridiculous and comments like What a weird attempt at a threat probably did exactly zero to deescalate the situation, and contribute to actual productive discussion. Just FYI. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been an editor since 2009 - I understand that relatively speaking, it could be marked as [ new editor ] -- all in all, new or experienced, we ought to refrain from accusations such as Single purpose accounts by Johnuniq - it is not only unprofessional but derails a cordial fruitful discussion. BTW, Most editors learn by asking questions-- cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but when I say "new editor", I'm talking more about "time spent working on Wikipedia articles", and not necessarily "time spent since you registered your account," and although you registered your account quite a few years ago, you don't have a whole heck of a lot of experience editing pages, which is pretty much the only way that editors learn all these many many rules that govern article content. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

False user rights claims by Izaiah.morris

Izaiah.morris has falsely claimed on his user page that he has admin and other rights he does not have. He has restored these claims to his page multiple times despite warnings (see edit summary on this revert). He has also engaged in other problematic behavior recently, such as this abusive edit summary and the creation of two articles (Splix.io, EX Ministries) that were speedily deleted as promotional. Funcrunch (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the icons/userboxes, and full-protected the user page. If he agrees to stop playing games, any admin can unprotect without talking to me. This user claims to be here to improve Wikipedia by fighting vandalism, but I've seen little to no evidence of that; instead, he seems to be here to screw around. Any more behavior like that shown in Funcrunch's second diff will result in an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam and his analysis. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Move Human like you activity from User:213.74.186.109

In the last hour 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs) re-instating edits by sock-puppet Wikisiki999 (talk · contribs). Compare the contributions, and note previous Human like you edits on those pages. Another IP block, or protection of the pages affected? Batternut (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is another block evasion of indef blocked user 'Human like you' [101] - obvious from contributions, also the IP confirmed that he registered the account 'Human like you'. This IP has been used by the same user at least since Sep 2016. User 'Human like you' has used multiple sock puppets before. 84.187.145.214 (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no question in my mind. The reversions restoring edits made by a blocked sock puppet account multiple times, the edit summaries left that clearly show the intent to roll back this editor, as well as the uncivil response that the IP made on this ANI report here just a few minutes ago - all show clear evidence of block evasion to me. The IP has been blocked for 72 hours for block evasion and all disruptive edits reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Should the IP be added to the list of sock puppets? 84.187.145.214 (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No. An IP address is not a sock puppet, and IP addresses can change ownership and users over time. While the edits were unquestionable in this case, there's no way to guarantee that an IP address belongs to the same person or is being used by the same person to edit. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not so experienced - but I've asked this question because I have seen that static IP's are in fact added to such lists in some cases. In this case by the contributions it is almost obvious that the same user (and only this user) has used this IP since at least Sept 2016 (e.g. tying to add the same content on [102] since Nov 2016). 84.187.145.214 (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries! You are correct to some extent. If the IP is static, then this does establish a reasonable plausibility that it belongs to the same person, organization, or area - it generally will not change. However, because an IP address is static does not automatically guarantee that it is controlled or solely used by one person, or the same person. Hence, it doesn't guarantee that all edits that are made from the IP are from that same person. The best thing to do in almost all situations like this is to examine edit behaviors and take administrative action only when satisfactory evidence exists that block evasion is occurring, and do so on a situational or a case-by-case basis. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

More of the same here: WhiteLightning1438 (talk · contribs). Reverted and blocked. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: But this new discovered sock puppet should be added to the list of sock puppets of 'Human like you', shouldn't it? And I found that for IP's there is the template Template:IPsock which could be used (though I don't know whether it is appropriate here). I just think that categorizing and marking the socks could be helpful to warn other editors. 84.187.150.100 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an example of a user that is actually a sock puppet and hence would be added to the relevant category. However, I personally don't add sock puppet accounts to categories like that, simply because I've dealt with numerous LTA users whose motivation was simply to make it as large as possible. In that case, each sock puppet account you add only motivates them that much more to continue what they're doing. Each sock that's added to the category associates "their name" and gives them recognition, the opposite of what we should be doing. It's certainly not improper to do (and you'd be correct in doing so), but it's just not something I personally do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

New account forum-shopping some kind of I-P complaint

ארינמל (talk · contribs)

As I pointed out here the account is almost certainly in violation of an ArbCom sanction, but do I really need to figure out how to open an AE report on this issue? Does anyone else know how to do it? Or how to warn the account that the General Prohibition exists?

Is it even a technical requirement to report violations of the General Prohibition on AE rather than here? I really don't know, and I've got something of a headache at the moment so I don't have the energy to figure it out for myself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I closed the discussion at RSN, at the very least. Also gave the user a DS/alert. El_C 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like the right move. And thank you for notifying the account of the ARBPIA sanctions as well. I think we might be done here, unless the account does something stupid. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Direct legal threat ("legal action will be taken if wikipedia do not engage in correct legal action") from an IP User:2A02:C7D:787D:9F00:A03C:43BA:B34B:43DA who wants to remove the sourced name of a world record holder from an article. Presumably block evasion by User:Palkanetoijala who has made similar threats over this article in the past. --McGeddon (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not touching that article with a ten-foot pole, but if we are going to name the record-holder inline, the spelling of his first name should probably be amended to match the cited source. Both spellings show up on a Google search, so I don't want to say which is correct or not, but it looks like a misspelling when it differs from our cited source. A 2013 magazine available on 007museum.com gives the "i" spelling for what it's worth. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The unclear spelling is under discussion on the talk page and seems to have reached an unimplemented conclusion (pick one and mention the other spelling in a footnote), I'm just flagging the legal threat. --McGeddon (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• Since it's not obvious from the above, this is about more nonsense from the Tube Challenge idiots. EEng 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Friends shipping vandal

All IPs in a narrow range 75.120.xxxxx and 75.121.xxxxx registered to CenturyTel Internet Holdings, Inc. in south central Alabama (except for one apparent trip to grandma's house for Thanksgiving).

Only edits are to Friends articles, mostly individual seasons and character lists. All edits are focused on changing the pairings of characters in the show from the plot to new couplings:Chandler with Rachel; Monica with Joey; keeping Ross with Emily (thus "Shipping".

2015 edit summaries were mostly new character names. Few edit summaries in 2016. 2017's edit summary is "Yes."

All IPs are with the same carrier in south central Alabama, with the exception of 11/24-25/2016, in southeastern Alabama (for Thanksgiving, I guess). Edit history goes back to July, 2013. Recent list is available at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Friends_shipping_vandal. Most recent IP is Special:Contributions/75.120.111.92. Ignores talk requests and blocks.

Is a range block an option here or are we stuck with the usual? - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this range is mainly where the disruption is coming from. The range isn't too active, and there haven't been many constructive edits in the past month; however, I've never blocked a /17 before. I don't want to get in trouble for being trigger-happy about wide range blocks, so I'm going to wait to see if a more experienced admin wants to chime in. It seems OK to me, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree - the 75.120.0.0/16 range looks to cover the root of where the disruption is coming from. Looking at the disruption over the last two days to "Friends-related" articles, the disruption came from 75.120.111.92 and 75.120.60.13. I looked into just blocking 75.120.111.0/24 and 75.120.60.0/24, but there are no other edits at all from other IPs under these two ranges, which essentially makes doing so completely moot. I went ahead and blocked the 75.120.0.0/16 range for 72 hours for disruptive editing. I think it's best to start small and see where things go from there. If we need to extend it, we can certainly do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Could any admin deal with this highly disruptive user?

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

---

Ozymaxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Apart from adding unsourced hoaxes everywhere, using fake edit summaries, as well as creating hoax articles (they are already deleted; see his talk page + contributions for further info), this comment on my user page does it IMHO.[103] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on their last edit to your talk page, I've blocked as WP:NOTHERE. It's obvious they are here to make a point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Debresser and Sir Joseph

Both users are aware of what the RFC and survey outcome were on this category, along with what it entails for the existing structure of related categories. However, both have persisted in edit warring (see 1 and 2), reverting and antagonizing users who restored the appropriate categories in accordance with the survey outcome (see 3 and 4), made blatantly dishonest claims in justifying their reverts (see 5, the opening survey statement, and its closure), and attempted to game the system to implement their preferred changes (see 5). Sir Joseph is, as of today, attempting to the restart the same discussion by phrasing it in a slightly different manner. This is disruptive editing and, at least to me, suggests that neither of these users should be editing on topics relating to Jewish descent or ethnic identity, as they are both clearly incapable of leaving their personal feelings out of it. I think a topic ban for both editors is an appropriate solution, but I'll leave that up to you.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Debresser&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sir+Joseph&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Musashiaharon#February_2017

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffgr9#Please_stop

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=766856773#Category:People_of_Jewish_descent

Firstly, even if the RFC was closed correctly, consensus can change. In addition, the RFC was extremely poorly written and discussed, even among the people commenting there was confusion. There is absolutely no prohibition on me creating a new RFC with a clearer, concise and simpler question. This is a content dispute and you are trying to create a chilling atmosphere where if someone disagrees with you, you will take them to ANI. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

See above for the underlying WP:MEAT issue behind this post. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, my post makes it pretty clear that this is a behavioral dispute, not a content one. Second, it was Debresser who worded the original RFC. That is something you need to take up with him. Although after reading over everything again, no one expressed confusion as to what we were discussing. This is a clear example of dishonesty on your part, and alongside your characterization of my post here as an insidious plot to silence dissent, only supports my view that you are unfit to edit in this area.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

[104] "One of the worst RFC's I've ever seen."

[105] "I do agree with you...." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you 105, although it is unclear if it was a reaction to Debresser's OP (again, take that up with him), or the overall long-windedness of the thread. Beyond that, the survey was very clear on what was being discussed, and everybody involved understood that. The issue is moot.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You are edit warring. The RFC was ONLY on the Category of Jewish Descent, not on anything else, since the Jewish Descent cat had Middle Eastern descent, asian descent. The RFC was not for any other categories. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose. Do not engage in threaded discussion, which can go above. The purpose of this section is to make it easier for the closer to assess what the !votes are without having to wade through a lot of back-and-forth." Did you even read the survey?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet the RFC itself was worded as "I propose to reach a conclusion that there is no place for "Middle East" categories, and per the same token "West Asian" or "Asian" categories, on any of the "Jewish descent" categories. There is at present no conformity on this issue in all of the "Jewish descent" categories, and of the many "Jewish descent" categories, some have one or more of the above. This Rfc strives to reach a conclusion that would be binding for all of them, and in my opinion that conclusion should be that those categories are out of place on all "Jewish descent" categories. " Notice all the "DESCENT" categories? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The wording was "Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose." Nothing about descent. However an RFC with that sort of wording needs to be in a centralized location and advertised properly. I don't know how it was advertised but I don't think one category talk page is a centralized location. The outcome should not be used as consensus for other pages, especially with the close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN see right above where the RFC was specifically for descent, which is why the whole RFC was confusing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It was advertised pretty well. Even the editors who were active in previous discussions were notified.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant, it was not in a central location so it can't be applied to any other categories. And besides, I stand by my assertion that the RFC is a bad RFC. It should be overturned just for being malformed. The question of the RFC doesn't match the survey and discussions. It is very confusing indeed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The survey was standalone (in fact, it was a reaction to the sheer long-windedness of the RFC) and the locus of discussion in the survey was abundantly clear. You can't overturn a survey decision because you believe there was widespread confusion (there wasn't) on the RFC, which as you admit, was separate.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

ANYWAY, this is getting off topic. This section is about Debresser and Sir Joseph's behavior, particularly whether they are capable of editing objectively on Jewish descent categories. Everything I've seen from them since the closure of the survey points towards the negative.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:JimmyNeutron2016

I recently encountered JimmyNeutron2016 at Sigmund Freud. He made an edit there that was neither very bad nor very good; I reverted it as I felt the previous version was a little better. Unfortunately, JimmyNeutron2016 has chosen to revert me twice. I would not normally bring something like this to ANI, but I have brought the matter here because in his most recent revert he chose to call me an "antisemitic person", based on absolutely zero evidence, naturally. This is a gross violation of WP:NPA, of the kind that someone could and should be blocked for. I note that this user has already been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing, and that he has "The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts" plastered on his user page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm so deeply sorry. Not. JimmyNeutron2016 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You have no place on a collaborative project if you think that such insults are acceptable. You pretty much deserve an indefinite block at this stage, and this repetition of the "antisemite" insult directed against me, after you were already brought to ANI for the matter, confirms that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:RickinBaltimore has applied the appropriate tool for the job. TimothyJosephWood 20:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And so I have. Two blocks in an awfully short amount of time, continued edit warring with possible BLP violations, and then the comment above? All adds up to not being here to work on the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to request that the edit summaries accusing me of being anti-semitic be hidden or otherwise removed from the article's history. They are 100% pure disruption and don't belong on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed the edit summaries as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like User:Myac00nt has taken up the mantle - this edit is identical to the changes made by JimmyNeutron2016. Please would you review this user as a suspected sockpuppet of JimmyNeutron2016. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go to SPI on this. Certainly is quacking, that's for sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Myac00nt sure looks to be a suspected sock puppet of the recent user who was indef-blocked. Check users are more proficient in investigating users who abuse multiple accounts that have a history of committing trouble like this. SportsLair (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, though there was concern from another editor earlier this month that the now blocked user was sockpuppeting (see here: [106]). This is to clarify that for sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Laser brain was indeed expressing concerns about it before. Now to finish this show off for sure, we will investigate if User:Myac00nt really is the block evader. There's a lot of psycho-aliens creating multiple accounts when their main accounts gets indef-blocked. I even expressed my own concern, myself. SportsLair (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Well, I see that User:Ks0stm set the banhammer on the sock, so it looks like this crisis is all over now. SportsLair (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Suicide threat?

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DPLAYER556&oldid=766875138

Emergency have been notified. Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Could be a real threat, but could equally be someone just trying to cause disruption or panic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Whichever one it is, we have to assume it's real. Adam9007 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Left the user a note. El_C 23:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Please see WP:SUICIDE, we have established procedures for this, including posting here to alert admins. All threats are to be taken seriously, and users should not self-appoint themselves as suicide counselors. Emergency has been notified, I have done the necessary administrative actions, that should be the end of our involvement, let the back office take it from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

People suffer from depression after being unable to understand how severe their consequences are, and this is all what it comes down to. I even posted a notice to help the blocked user cope about it (if it can ever cope about it) SportsLair (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, cut it out. By now the back office will have responded and gotten in contact with actual professionals. I know it is tempting to try and reach out in these situations but it is not actually helpful. That being the case I have deleted their talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:EvilLair

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

---

I have been getting reports that this user has been posting unnecessary Happy Birthday messages to here and of course, my own talk page. Matter to be made worse, the user is begging to tell me something, but users have their own schedules. It wouldn't be all that necessary to beg or post birthday messages to any user you don't even know. SportsLair (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not true. The user gave me permission to give them a message wishing them for their birthday as long as he deletes it right after, and now he's using it as a tool to report me. I asked to tell you something because you gave me permission. This user gives me permission to do some stuff and then uses it as a tool to report me to the staff of the site. This is a usual trick of his, and it's slanderous and defamatory (not in a legal way, but you know what I mean, he's trying to tell lies to get me in trouble). EvilLair (✉ | c) 00:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No permission or authority was given in any way. Nothing would grant any right to post unnecessary messages, such as birthday messages to anyone you don't know yet. SportsLair (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I must conclude this is a complete and utter non-issue. Why is this brought up in WP:ANI? Kleuske (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As an added update, the offender posted this message recently, still claiming that it gave permission to post a happy birthday notice, although it's not allowed if you don't fully know that user. SportsLair (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Edits by POV pushing editor

TruthRevealer69 has demonstrated that they are clearly on Wikipedia with an axe to grind with edits such as these.[107][108][109][110]. Has shown, as well, little to no understanding of policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, or WP:FRINGE. Their name really says it all. I recommend a block based on WP:NOTHERE. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least the edit-warring is good grounds for a block. Also there's already a level 3 warning on their TP. Kleuske (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block: TruthRevealer69 is clearly not here to contribute to this site properly. I agree to what both users said before. SportsLair (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Any user with "truth" in their ID is typically up to no good, and that appears to be the case with this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Request to bring behaviour at an AfD here

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

---

I appear to have been asked to bring the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Meghwal rape case here by E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs), specifically with regard to their rather ambiguous comment here about WP:BLUDGEON. It is a waste of everyone's time but they obviously think someone - probably me - is behaving in an untoward manner at that AfD. So, peanut gallery, do your worst. Or just close this asap. Whichever you choose, with my apologies and a strong sense that this is just stupid. I will notify Inlinetext (talk · contribs) also as they appear to be the only likely other candidate for EMG's cryptic comment. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, from reading it, it appears that YOU suggested bringing the discussion here. I'd advise dropping the stick, adding your !vote and then editing something else. Bringing disputes here to AN/I very rarely ends well. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Requesting help re: a personal attack

At the suggestion of User:CapnZapp, who had advised User:Pyxis Solitary and me to avoid each other, I am bringing this issue here. Two days after CapnZapp and others advised me and Pyxis Solitar to avoid each other, Pyxis Solitary added this note to their user page. Without using my name, Pyxis Solitary is clearly referring to things on my user page, such as my edit count and the accolades I've gratefully accepted from the many fellow editors with whom I collegially work. I believe it's wrong not only to make a personal attack like that but also to be "clever" and attack another editor using insinuation. I ask for help or at least advice: Is it OK for that editor to do this? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, looking purely at that edit there's no indication that it's pointed directly at you. I could spit and hit a dozen admins here who have accolades and counters and what-have-you. Maybe you should stop watching their userpage and go about your business? Primefac (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to have a look, but I'm not sure you saw the long, contentious thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists, and the advise by CapnZapp at the end of that thread. I could also point one toward User talk:Snow Rise#WP:ANI/Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue, in which Pyxis Solitary is slagging me off. The user-page diatribe, coming two days after a long contentious thread in which that editor took multiple, repeated shots at me, is absolutely directed at me, as further indicated by the editor's continuing attacks on Snow Rise's talk page.

But for the sake of argument, is it proper to have a diatribe like that directed against anyone? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly not directed at anyone at all, and the fact that you are monitoring the user's userpage is a violation of the advice to avoid each other. If I were you I would WP:DROPTHESTICK. Take the user's page off your watchlist. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Islandersa deliberately ignoring multiple editors and edit warring

Over at Deaths in 2017, User:Islandersa is repeatedly adding in information to an entry despite being informed/reverted by myself, @Nukualofa:, @DrKilleMoff:, @Derek R Bullamore:, @Vycl1994:, @EternalNomad: and @Rcb1:. It's at this point clear to me the only goal is aggravation, so I feel blocking the editor is necessary. Rusted AutoParts 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the edit in question, performed many times over, contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. Somewhere in this mess is a 3RR violation by me (sorry), which I caught and fixed only for other editors to continue warning Islandersa. This continued on and on up to the filing of this report. Vycl1994 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)