Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990

Editor continually editing against consensus

Vjmlhds had continually made changes to the List of WWE personnel against the established consensus. The WWE currently has multiple brands, Raw being one of them, and 205 Live (for cruiserweights) being a division under the Raw brand. Vjmlhds keeps making changes to say it is its own brand and not a division, yet when asked for support from a WP:RS they give vague answers or provide a youtube video to someone calling it a brand. The WWE's official 10-K does not list it as a brand, only Raw, SmackDown and NXT. The cruiserweights tour as part of Raw, not on their own. The championship that they say is the championship of that brand, clearly is referred to as being on the Raw brand for the cruiserweight division, see [1]. Despite being warned about this and being informed that professional wrestling is under general sanctions here [2], this user continues to not provide any evidence of their stance and continues to make the same changes [3] and [4]. As you can see from their comments here [5] their argument is to just let it be, and they are doing their own thing. There is nothing verifiable that they are their own brand. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is still going on? I made a similar thread in DECEMBER 2016! He got one last warning in that thread, then got a block and editing restrictions by community consensus four months later[6]. Outta WP:ROPE. Enough's enough, we can't keep coming back here for the same issues. Episodes like this are why pro wrestling articles are under sanctions right now.LM2000 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow I never thought to look at their block log until now [7]. They have been blocked numerous times over the past 10 years, and multiple times for edit warring on the exact same page this is about. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Galatz said right thing about this issue, I'm also facing same thing regarding Keeping/Separating Raw and 205Live Cruiserweights, Even at the time I appealed protection for 3 days but didn't work, Before protection I added the tag of Confusing and Unclear, several times Vjmlhds reverted, this turned to an argument at my talk page, I just called sock edit to see how I got reaction by Vj, Me? I got 2 warnings for removing talk page messages and closing discussions that again results in initiation of arguments again and again. Second, Vjmlhds is not only the user, another user I'm gonna report is IP user 32.213.92.177 who also continuously doing same edit-warring as Vjmlhds did.CK (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll make life real easy for everyone...if the 205 Live issue is causing this much consternation, I'll back down. Not worth the hassle and the fuss. If this were 2 years ago, I'd probably be on Def-Con 1 about now firing hellfire and brimstone...these days, not so much. Win some, lose some. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I think this should be close now that Vjmlhds has agreed to back down. If he/she does anything like this in the future, a voluntary Topic ban at the very least should be considered. JC7V-constructive zone 19:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

After 10 previous blocks for the same thing? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor appears willing to cool it down. And I said 'at the very least' if he/she does it again which does not mean a slap on the wrist should he/she mess up again. 'At the very least' is like saying 'sentenced 10 to 20 years' meaning it's the lowest action that should be taken. I think with 10 blocks, a block if he/she breaks their word is more in line with what I was thinking. JC7V-constructive zone 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've heard that way too many times from this editor. We have no reason to believe him, he made these same proclamations in 2016 and 2017. He has already been given his last chances has continued the same behavior in the exact same disputes. For the record, the List of WWE personnel article should have more restrictions on it as well.LM2000 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

LM2000 After being banished to Wiki Siberia for 4 months like I was last year, trust me when I say I'm done as far as this issue goes...I don't need to go through that again - truthfully, I didn't think this issue would go as far as it did. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Firmly disagree with this decision, as does the majority. The weekly program and the talent involved along with the person who runs the brand and co-runs the company calls it a brand. This needs to stop. Gala has a personal vendetta. That's all it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Also: Gala is incorrectly framing this as going against the majority. The majority (check the talk page) want it changed, two people argue against it. NXT UK does not deserve a roster section if 205 doesn't have it's own when both are listed as separate brands on television and press interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@32.213.92.177: Firstly, a consensus is formed based on the quality of the arguments presented, not a simple count of votes. For example, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The B-Team (professional wrestling) which had way more keep votes than delete but got deleted due to the quality of the arguments, not the quantity of the votes. You claim 205 Live is called a brand in a press release, so please provide it. Provide any WP:RS, not random youtube videos of passing mentions on TV, that support your stance. Seriously provide even one. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Random Youtube videos" is discrediting something that shouldn't be discredited. When the person RUNNING THE COMPANY calls it a brand, that's kind of key, no? On TV, in press meetings, etc. Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live. https://www.wweperformancecenter.com/#!/journey

I've given numerous examples of different branding for the brand, I've given numerous examples of Triple H, the guy who runs 3/5s of the brands in the company, outright calling it a brand, I've given numerous examples of talent involved calling it a brand, I've given numerous examples as to why it /is/ a brand. You change the goalpost because you have some weird hard on with keeping it with RAW. That's it. Stop moving goalposts. It's unbearable at this point. They have a GM, they have exclusive call ups, they don't appear on RAW, they're not Main Event or a B show, they're their own brand and are regularly called that. The /only/ argument you have is that WWE.com hasn't updated the roster page completely. But if that's all we're using, then NXT UK shouldn't have a section either. Oh, and numerous credible websites like WWENetworkNews.com, PWInsider.com, etc. regularly refer to them as a brand too, likely because the second in command of the entire company does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

I am not moving goalposts. You don't read the information you are posting, to show that it doesn't support your case. For example, you stated Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live. https://www.wweperformancecenter.com/#!/journey yet that is not true. It says Check out the many Superstars who came through the Performance Center before making their mark on Monday Night Raw, SmackDown LIVE and 205 Live. This is clearly discussing TV shows not brands. I suggest you read WP:PRIMARY to see why secondary sources are preferred because you are drawing a conclusion based on what is said, there is nothing that directly mentions a brand on that website, yet you have concluded it does. You cannot do that with primary sources, you need a WP:RS to analyze it and draw that conclusion, yet you have been unable to provide any that does. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You've moved the goal post many times since the discussions initially began, many of which mysteriously disappeared from the talk page. Curious. The issue is everybody who has an understanding of the company and listens to Triple H's press conferences know it's a brand, but it's something a few people (namely yourself) with a vendetta against the brand for existing wants to stop it from being acknowledged. It's very odd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

Nothing on wikipedia can disappear...perhaps you just got caught in a lie and are trying to weasel out of it? I ask you again and again provide a source that calls it a brand. The fact that you cannot proves that it isn't. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's my $.02 as far as all this goes. Back in 2016/2017 when the previous block happened, I was practically begging VJ to back down. At the time, his editing attitude was rotten and I supported a temporary ban. However, when he is focused, he has done some of the best editing work that I've seen. If memory serves me correctly, he received a 3 or 4 month ban and a warning to stop editing his own talk page during that time. He was told to remain civil for a period of time following the expiration of the ban as well as a no tolerance revert rule for a period of a few months. I haven't seen him do anything to violate this since his return. It appears he wipes -- not archives -- his talk page once in a while when there is a dispute of some kind. He may have a block history, but I haven't seen him be uncivil or draw any lines in the sand this time around. I oppose any ban whatsoever this time around. For what it's worth, I disagree with his stance on how the rosters should be listed, but it doesn't mean he can't argue his point. Kjscotte34 (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

RESPONCE TO Here's my $.02 as far as all this goes LOL Another Sockpuppet gonna exist to clarify unsourced trivia that 205 Live is separated from RAW. Triple H Just took the names as RAW, SD, 205, NXT, UK so what if he takes, so what if CWCs are now appearing on RAW on television but seen in House Shows of RAW, It doesn't mean to argue the same trivial f****king junk here. It's officially cleared that there had been no official announcement made by WWE, not even tweets not even on website that they're separated. Infact Triple H is just a COO not E or chairman of WWE and WWE official source is not even old or glitch that had been accused for being old or glitch, Either official websites are not yet updated and have still old data will still be sourced EK SE EK BOSDIWALE BETHAY HUAY HAIN YAHAN EK HI BAKWAS CHERE JATE HAIN KAMINAY! Is this a strip club that money has thrown by mentioning currencies sign or it seems to be bribing done by Kjscotte34, Requested to one of fellow wikipedians to stop bribing for confirmation of source, if a content that is found unsourced is unsourced and cannot be sourced in any exchange or by bribing money. CK (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoa. Did you just accuse me of being a sock? Let's take a look at your history, and see what we have. Wow. Numerous blocks, some of them for sockpuppetry. Now, let's look at mine. Nothing. Autoconfirmed user. Longtime WP editor. In fact, the only edits that I have in common with VJ are the wrestling ones. He mainly edits Cleveland area stuff. I love in NY and edit stuff concerning NY. Keep stretching though, I needed a good laugh to begin my Friday. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Another $.02 (concerning challenged material): I keep seeing things that causes wonder. ""Random Youtube videos" is discrediting something that shouldn't be discredited. When the person RUNNING THE COMPANY calls it a brand, that's kind of key, no? On TV, in press meetings, etc. Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live.", and a website that contains "www.wwe", and if I read this right it gives an answer. To me there are too many arguments that this person or that said or stated something referring to "members" or leader, owners, etc... of WWE. An argument that seems to support that because a primary source states something there is grounds for inclusion. To me the inquiry should be where in reliable published sources" does it state the claims being offered. If these articles are so heavily sourced with Primary sources, or assertions of verbal proof (youtube, live TV, or other) then this seems to be a problem when challenged:
• "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".
  • It goes farther to specifically include "published source".
• Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this.".
  • Restoration of material
• "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.".

There would also be concerns when regarding a BLP, as well as original research concerning the verifiability policy:

1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

The reason we don't count votes rather using consensus: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", understanding that article or local consensus, even "ignoring all the rules", "...cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.".

I am going to posit that we cannot use "claims" made on live TV or youtube as reliable sources (if challenged), certainly when not published, because it is in violation of a host of policies, guidelines, or even broad community supported essays if not in contradiction with any policies and guidelines. ---- Otr500 (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and you can see here [8], I summarized that the WWE's official published position is not a brand. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

32.213.92.177 while there is an active conversation going on here about his actions, and multiple people have explaining the same thing to him here, is continuing to make these edits against the established consensus, see [9]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look at this? The IP user is still making these changes with the discussion happening here? [10] - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? This user has announced they will no longer by WP:CIVIL so I would appreciate an admin taking a look [11]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 00:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I said I'd no longer be civil with user Galatz because he is insufferable. He keeps reverting changes. When asked for proof, we'd regularly supply it. When saying it didn't fit into the guidelines, another user supplied proof that did indeed fit into the guidelines. Instead, he has a vendetta and keeps fighting it. He asked for it in writing from the company - the company put it in writing and he still fights it. If the person in charge of three brands says it, they say it on TV, and the website itself says it, on top of all the other branding I've pointed to numerous times, then he's just fighting for the sake of it. At the very worst, they're a talent exchange ala Smackdown and ECW in the late 00's, and they had separate rosters then too. – unsigned post by who-knows-who — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

• Now are we ready to simply eliminate all coverage of "professional" wresting? EEng 02:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  @EEng: in typical fashion you are attempting to turn the conversation about yourself and your "agenda" rather than trying to actually be helpful. Didn't your parents ever tell you that if you have nothing useful to say, don't say anything? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  I speak for the vast majority of editors who are sick and tired of these idiotic wrestling arguments showing up at ANI. "It's a brand." "No, it's a division!" "No, it's a brand!" "Is not!" "Is too!" Who gives a shit? Grown men prancing about in tights and masks. It's almost as dumb as arguments over music genres, except they don't end up here nearly so often. EEng 18:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Who cares whether or not if you care about the amount that it comes here? Its a notable topic that belongs on Wikipedia regardless of your feelings about the topic. If you have something constructive to add, add it. Otherwise shut up and stop making everything about you. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I clearly don't care for Galatz very much, but he's right here. This has nothing to do with you and your childish detest for something.

• 32.213.92.177 So basically you are saying that another wikipedia policy, WP:CIVIL does not apply to you? Scroll up and read the multiple people who explained to you why what you provided does not conform with wikipedia policies. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There is now a source that works within the guidelines, so denying that with older sources is just arguing for the sake of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

@32.213.92.177: I suggest you familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing. It is very clear you do not understand them. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

More stick chewing and forum shopping from Merphee

Just a couple of days ago a discussion on Merphee fell off the active discussions here. It failed to get properly resolved, largely because discussion was distracted by probably incorrect discussions of sockpuppetry. The earlier discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive988#Problematic editing by Merphee.

I had let the issue go, until yesterday, when Merphee called me back to Talk:The Australian#Questionable source. Discussion recommenced there. He didn't like the immediate result. (Just a tad impatient methinks.) So he again went forum shopping, this time to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Monthly, and yet again failed to tell anyone else about it.

Note that, while I have been criticised by some for my comments in this dispute, I had let this go. Merphee re-initiated discussions, explicitly asking me to comment and, surprise, surprise, didn't like my opinion.

There are many things about this editor's behaviour that bother me. Most are mentioned in the earlier thread. I see no need to mention them all here. The important thing is that he is still making trouble. And forum shopping, with no patience for resolution. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide some serious evidence through diffs for your serious allegations?Merphee (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Neutrally worded posts on Noticeboards are not "forum shopping", but are an encouraged form of dispute resolution. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My concern is with the haste shown in taking the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Monthly only hours after re-opening discussions, and in not advising other editors about it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Quite honestly my decision to take our discussion to the noticeboard (as we are supposed to do) was to also to get away from your unrelenting personal attacks and belittling. Anyone who reads the thread at Talk:The Australian could see that. Let alone all the other occasions you have personally attacked me.Merphee (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• There's no minimum time limit requirement for posting to noticeboards. And, while a notice of the posting would have be courteous, it is also not required. Reviewing the article Talk page, I do, however, find reference to DR generally, and RSN specifically, included in the following diffs, prior to the RSN post.1,2 - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Extreme and unrelenting personal attacks and constant belittling by HiLo48

I have been the target of ongoing and extreme personal attacks, bullying, bad faith accusations without evidence, constant belittling, hounding and harassment by User:HiLo48 and just want it to stop. I will start to gather diffs and other evidence but a good start would be looking at Talk:The Australian.Merphee (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I had resolved to avoid the Talk page where I have said something that you apparently now don't like. But you explicitly invited me to comment again. If you had not wanted my opinion, you should not have asked for it again. I do not understand your behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not what occurred at all at. However I seriously just want the unrelenting and extreme personal attacks and constant belittling to stop.Merphee (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Extreme personal attacks" are a serious concern. Diffs of these attacks and belittlings would help outsiders assess the proper response. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not see any personal attacks, except that possibly the insistence of User:Merphee that User:HiLo48 is conducting a campaign of personal attacks may itself be a personal attack. I see none of the alleged personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologise but I am at work at the moment. I will provide strong evidence through diffs later tonight if that's ok? This one [12] from today at Talk:The Australian was completely uncalled for if you read the thread under Questionable source. I was certainly not forum shopping and tried to word my post on the noticeboard as neutrally as possible, so the constant accusations about forum shopping HiLo48 makes here and on the talk page seem pretty unfair as it was not multiple noticeboards and I simply wanted to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions to help form a consensus.Merphee (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do see a focus on contributor, not content, and a failure to engage substantively; but "extreme personal attacks" seems to be gilding the lily. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My use of the word 'extreme' relates to the total period of attacks and belittling. Apologies but I will provide many more diffs to support my post here as I just want it to stop. I note also on the Talk:The Australian that the points I was trying to make have now been supported by uninvolved editors see this comment [13] which was also why I correctly and neutrally placed the discussion on one single norticeboard, the reliable source noticeboard, and tried to disengage from HiLo48. HiLo48 then went straight there and posted this comment [14] making further unfounded accusations of forum shopping.Merphee (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• If the alleged attacks are personal, extreme and unrelenting, then it should be very easy to provide convincing diffs, Merphee. Please do so as soon as your personal schedule permits. So far, I am not seeing the pattern of misconduct that you are accusing HiLo48 of. However, I will keep an open mind at least until you furnish the diffs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The example that you provide isn't a personal attack, and leads me to doubt your judgment as to whether you know what a personal attack is. Not all disagreement is personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

−

• I've not seen anything either. "Extreme and Unrelenting" seem a little overly dramatic. HiLo48 is being persistent as is Merphee, but what I see is a lot of talking past each other and lines in the sand being drawn. With regards to the content, I can certainly see HiLo48's point concerning The Australian, being Australian myself. I can't bring myself to see anything that is affiliated with Murdoch as anything but right wing. Blackmane (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have resolved to not post again here unless I see something patently wrong (apart from comments from Merphee, where negative comments about me are the norm). It's incorrect to label me as persistent. I had not posted at the Talk page in question for quite some time, and only did so yesterday because Merphee explicitly asked me to. I hope it's clear that is NOT an example of persistence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I will provide more diffs later tonight. My understanding is that constantly making big accusations like Forum Shopping and POV with no evidence and when I carefully selected my wording at the noticeboard is a form of personal attack? I also note that HiLo48's long quote and the 'essay' source I've questioned at The Australian has also not been supported by other uninvolved editors. Please see Talk:The Australian. Please also refer to this edit as evidence of that point. [15]. I have never said it was not centre right. It is even in the info-box. That was another accusation HiLo48 constantly made that i am trying to say The Australian is not centre-right and with no supporting evidence. Please refer to this diff as evidence to support my comments on that accusation.[16]Merphee (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Listen, Merphee, you better provide much better evidence than you have so far. Either that, or consider withdrawing your accusations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I will re-frame my accusation then after looking at the diffs I have provided here. Constant belittling and making accusations like Forum Shopping and POV with no evidence and only evidence to the contrary I thought was a form of personal attack. Calling me a "nasty piece of work" is what I thought was a direct personal attack. Constantly calling me a "liar" in discussions with others and with no evidence was what I thought was an attack. However I will provide more diffs later tonight after work if that's ok? I also have already recognised that the word 'extreme' was a little excessive and apologise to HiLo48 for that.However the "unrelenting" and "belittling" parts of my post here, I do stand by and will show evidence for later.Merphee (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Those words, that phrase, seems to be something of a mantra for you, Merphee. The only questionable comment on that talk page that I see (I may not have seen everything) is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Australian&diff=prev&oldid=853934530 "ANNOUNCEMENT", but I can see HiLo's point about forum shopping. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, it's worth checking via Edits by User, as Merphee has periodically removed posts: [17]. Or, even easier, start here [18] and click forward to each next edit. HiLo48 has been harassing Merphee on his talkpage despite requests to stay off it. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not been near his Talk page in recent days. And I don't believe anything I did there was harassment. I only responded to an unacceptable approach to editing. I also was avoiding the articles where earlier dramas had arisen, UNTIL I was invited back there by Merphee himself. I have already explained all this. Why are you so misrepresenting the situation? Have you not actually read what was written here? Have I upset you at some stage? You accusations demand specific examples, with full context. AND dates. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a little gem, which exemplifies your inability to have a civil conversation with Merphee: [19]. You both exhibit the same behaviors (with different writing styles), but neither of you can see that. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And it will be obvious to anyone who reads it that that diff requires context (reference to "last night", etc), which I requested you provide, yet you didn't. You are confirming all my views of bad Admins. Why do you do this? HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, I looked through all the diffs on Merphee's talk page. None of them are individually blockable, nor do they add up to anything. I didn't see a request to stay away, but I only looked at HiLo's edits (per your link); I did see Merphee continuously engaging with them. And this may be sharp, but it's not that awful at all. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I never said nor implied any of those posts on his talkpage were "blockable". In terms of requests to stay off his talk page: I would really prefer if you made comment on the talk page; As I said I would prefer to talk on the article talk page.; This is the third time I have asked you not to be on my talk page; you: HiLo48, you got a point, but so do they re:talk page. Kindly refrain. No response necessary but an eloquent silence. Thanks, Drmies; My requests for you to stop commenting on my talk page were real.; And here you are again posting on my talk page when I've asked you countless times to stop.; I will make it extremely clear now. DO NOT post on my talk page again.. On NeilN's talkpage: I kindly asked you multiple times as you know, to not post on my talk page but still you continued unabated. Even administrator Drmies asked you to stop. You continued. It is my talk page HiLo48. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.; HiLo48 obviously will not stop posting on my talk page so I feel pretty helpless here. I just hope HiLo48 hears your warning and stops doing it, now two administrators have asked him not to.; Straight away after your last warning and mine, they made two more posts on my talk page.; Just stop posting on my talk page.. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a thought

How about you both stay off each other's talkpages, stop referring to each other, stop labeling each other, stop mind-reading, and go back to editing and focusing on content, not editor(s)? Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How about YOU pay attention to who has been doing what here? I have not been near Merphee's talk page for many days. Over that same period I had not commented anywhere about the issues now being discussed. This issue ONLY arose again because Merphee explicitly asked me to comment, so I did. Since then I have tried very hard to simply describe his problematic approach to editing. Posts suggesting we are equally at fault here are false, and quite unhelpful. I had resolved to not post again unless more false accusations were made about me. That comment was just such a post. The thoughts I have written about Administrator competence and objectivity on my User page are reinforced every time I come to a page such as this. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly HiLo48, if that is your attitude and you cannot see your own WP:PAs and repeated long-term pot-stirring, I agree with Tarage that an IBAN is in order. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And there YOU go again. It's as if you didn't read a word I wrote in my previous post above. I was looking for peace. Please try again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If you refrained from capitalizing the word "you" and not make it the first sentence it might make your delivery a bit more palatable. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I would have preferred someone else be the one to re-open the case against Merphee, since they have constantly attempted to start fights with myself and HiLo48. My advice would be simply to ping the people who were involved in the now-archived incident discussion and make it clear that a conclusion has not been reached. It was absolutely derailed by sockpuppet allegations. @HiLo48: can you tell us the nature of the latest dispute regarding The Australian and anything that has happened since the last incident discussion? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's all effectively in the second paragraph of this thread. Within hours of inviting me back to a conversation I had been avoiding, and getting responses he didn't like from me and another editor, he went forum shopping again. I regard that as disruptive editing. And a lack of patience. But I'm running out of energy on this, and I'm getting abused and having my behaviour misrepresented by an Admin, so feel free to do your best. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what the forum shopping stuff is about. Up until that part everything seems fine. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip you say "since they have constantly attempted to start fights with myself and HiLo48." Are you kidding? Could you provide evidence for that through diffs? You and I have had no contact whatsoever since Emma Husar! And HiLo48, you know that's not true and the diffs on Talk:The Australian tell a completely different story. I tried to discuss your edit with you and I made numerous attempts to clarify my two questions on the talk page and focus our discussion entirely on the content dispute and away from you continuing to comment on me. It should also be noted that I did not choose to revert your edit and get into an edit war but rather I decided to post a neutrally worded case on the noticeboard to get the opinions of uninvolved editors. I also gave you due notice I would be doing that. There is also a new section that onetwothreeip opened on the Talk:The Australian and I just commented as I genuinely want to resolve this through consensus.Merphee (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)  

The problem is, neither you nor HiLo48 can carry on a discussion without engaging in personal attacks. So the way I see it, is there are several options available to resolve this: (A) You both follow the bolded advice at the top of this subthread. DO NOT MENTION OTHER EDITORS, by name, reference, or using the word "you". It's hard at first and takes practice but it can be done; you can pretend you are a robot if need be. (B) We topic ban both of you from Australian media and whatever else you conflict about. (C) We institute an WP:IBAN between the two of you. (D) We topic ban you (Merphee) from Australian media or whatever the problem area is. (E) We block both of you. (F) We block you (Merphee), as the most disruptive (as agreed by several editors at this point) and least experienced editor. Something has to be done, because the endless bickering which you both engage in is disruptive and dysfunctional. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion on the Emma Husar article. @Softlavender: is it really true that HiLo48 has made personal attacks? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't like to say this, but after seeing Murphee's last post on the RSN board, something needs to be done. They do not seem to be able to control their political bias; it leads them into all sorts of hyperbolic and exaggerated claims, doubling down, then when called out, inability to provide diffs, deflection and diversion to another forum, or attempting to drop the subject. You can see it in effect in this thread, and at their posts on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#footer RSN ( see the post "The monthly)..it makes them extremely difficult to come to a consensus with. I would 'support' a topic ban on Political bias in Australian media and Australian politics for Murphee. I would have suggested this last time, but everything got derailed by the socking allegations, and I resolved to AGF. I no longer think this Curdle (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Diff? (On review, I could not see anything which would support the statements above.) - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Merphee has a tendency to hyperbole, but it usually comes after bickering from Hilo48. I do not think there was anything amiss about posting on RSN; editors are allowed to do that at any time, for any reason, and do not have to give anyone notice that they have done so, and it is not "forum shopping" unless there are already other WP:DR in process -- all of which Ryk72 explained at the top of this thread. The problem with that RSN thread was HiLo48 jumping in immediately with personal attacks: [20]. So we can't judge the situation neutrally because, as so often before, HiLo48 has made it non-neutral by bickering. So the first step, in my opinion, is to stop the bickering from both of them. Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the last post they made on the RSN- I had no objections to Murphee going to the RSN, although I did think it was a bit premature; I do object to him making quite frankly ridiculous statements about a fairly average magazine, then when being asked to provide evidence of their claims, promptly changing the goalposts and saying its about undue weight and returning to the original talk page! Its a constant pattern of deflection, and makes reasoned discussion almost impossible..We now seem to have settled on wording similar to what I proposed at the beginning of this whole farrago. I have a bad feeling this is going to be a constantly repeating pattern, but as noone else has chimed in, I guess I will once again try to AGF and hope to be proven wrong. Curdle (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Diff? (On review, I could not see anything which would support the statements above.) - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought the thread was obvious enough but ok- do you not see what I see? being asked for evidence, Now says issue is about weight rather than source Curdle (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not see what you say is there. I do not see Merphee making quite frankly ridiculous statements about a fairly average magazine. I do see what appears to be a clear misrepresentation of their question at WP:RSN; and have called this out in my recent edit. I do see a fairly anodyne response to that. If there are other diffs which do show such ridiculous statements, then they need to be provided. I do not see any changing the goalposts. Our content does not have one set of goals through which it must pass, but many; it is not inappropriate to raise, about the same content, questions of reliability, of attribution, and of WP:WEIGHT; either concurrently or consecutively. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Curdle, in each instance, both on the RSN thread and the talkpage thread(s), it is the element of HiLo48 and his bickering that sets Merphee off; until HiLo48 interjects the bickering, Merphee is neutral. So it's fairly clear to me that HiLo48 is the causative factor. That does not excuse Merphee's losing it because of HiLo48's bickering or snide attitude, but it does mean they both need to stop reacting to, or even referring to, each other and/or deliberately making a conversation toxic because the other is in it. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Curdle your second version was quite different. I think we were able to reach a consensus because no one was attacking me and railroading my attempts to establish consensus at the noticeboard. HiLo48's version in the article was not acceptable in my opinion at least. By the way, I never "changed the goalposts" and included my concerns about undue weight pretty much from the beginning. The only constantly repeating pattern is me reacting to HiLo48's focus on me personally and not the content issues I raised. That's it. Regardless please assume some good faith in your interactions with me as I clearly compromised so we could reach consensus and am genuinely here to help the project, not harm it.Merphee (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Murphee, It really wasnt that different, you were just too busy bickering to read it properly. Mevermind its late, I'm tired, the thing is hopefully sorted and I keep getting hit by edit conflicts. I am done for today, happy editing. BTW Sorry about the formating Reyk72. I didnt see the little comments wedged in there.Curdle (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I made this neutrally worded edit [21] a while ago on the Talk:The Australian in a genuine attempt to reach a consensus and compromise but everyone seems to have ignored it. I have never engaged in an edit war and I do not attack other editors personally. But I do want the attacks on me to stop as they just lead the discussion away from a focus on reaching consensus.Merphee (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's a case in point. Discussion was proceeding fine and then HiLo48 jumped in with bickering and personal attacks. Discussion then proceeded fine without HiLo48 and a solution was reached. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Will you EVER pay attention to the truth here? I DID NOT jump in. Merphee asked me to comment. There is considerable difference. And the issue is now resolved. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, he didn't; read the thread: Talk:The Australian#Editorial disputes. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender - Nobody else here is attacking me here the way you are. I really did stay out of discussions in this area for several days before Merphee invited me back. You don't seem even capable of acknowledging that sequence of events. You attacks on me stand out. What have I done to upset you? HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender is not attacking you. Describing your (and Murphee's) contributions as bickering is not an attack, it's an accurate representation of many of your contributions. I suggest you take the advice proffered and stop interacting with one another informally, or it will be done for you by the community, because we all - and I include both of you - have better things to do. Fish+Karate 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as The Australian article page it seems Curdle and I have reached a consensus [22] and unless anyone objects Curdle will put in their suggested edit which seems quite reasonable to me and satisfies my concerns with the previous version.Merphee (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender and Ryk72: what are these personal attacks HiLo48 has made? I must say that Merphee has been this belligerent to virtually everyone they have come across in the last month or so, even people who they praise. It's absolutely not triggered by HiLo48, as was shown in the previous incident discussion about Merphee, which certainly was not started by HiLo48. Obviously Merphee dislikes HiLo48 the most, and for that reason I wished someone else were to restart this process. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Examples and threads and diffs have already been provided in this overall thread, and there are plenty more to go around. But first, how about you provide diffs for your claim that "Merphee has been this belligerent to virtually everyone they have come across in the last month or so"? Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the proof, I trust people are being honest here. What attacks has HiLo48 made? I'm only aware of them making what could be considered to be attacks against Merphee, only because Merphee doesn't stop talking about it. I point to the rampant incivility towards several contributors at Talk:Emma Husar and Talk:David Leyonhjelm at least. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick resolution?

Merphee, make a promise to have minimal and only low key interactions with HiLo48 for at least a year. It's an expectation and presumed that HiLo48 will not "use" that in any way. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this request/proposal, since both editors are clearly at issue; HiLo48 is the instigator here as he opened this ANI against Merphee in bad faith, with an extremely POV title, when all Merphee was doing was engaging in proper and normal WP:DR. We have already shown that Merphee behaves fine and solutions are reached when HiLo48 is not bickering or attacking him. He has stated numerous times that he has learned from the Emma Husar discussions and has not been disruptive like that since, except when goaded by HiLo48. The situation at The Australian was resolved amicably when HiLo48 dropped out of the discussion (not before bickering and leaving a personal attack against a third party however). Merphee was indeed quite correct that the extremely POV cherry-picked quote from The Monthly that HiLo48 inserted into the article violated NPOV and UNDUE. Softlavender (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue for my suggestion. But I did want to fix a possibly mistaken impression from my post. Without repeating my comment below which gives more explanation, I was trying to come up with the bare minimum to resolve it, not reflect on the details of who did what. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the cited sequence of events directly below in the subthread "Here's how it went down" for an idea of why that wouldn't work. HiLo48 has been, and has continued to be, the one at fault from the very beginning of this situation. Softlavender (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's how it went down

Merphee removed an uncited, unattributed POV statement from The Australian that had been tagged for three years: [23]. HiLo48 went straight to Merphee's usertalk to harass him: [24]. Merphee added back part of the material he had removed: [25]. HiLo48 inserted an extremely POV quotation into the article: [26]. Merphee opened a neutral discussion on the article's talkpage about the POV quote: [27]. HiLo48's response was "Stop destroying the article" and he continued to deflect, bicker, and ridicule: [28]. Merphee correctly removed the quote and attempted to summarize it instead: [29]. HiLo48 reverted [30], and failed to neutrally respond to the issues Merphee brought up about it, instead bickering, casting aspersions, and making demands: [31]. Therefore Merphee engaged in WP:DR by opening a thread on WP:RSN: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Monthly. HiLo48 falsely accused Merphee of forum-shopping: [32], [33], and then opened this ANI falsely accusing Merphee of forum-shopping: [34]. --Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose I-Ban between Merphee and HiLo48

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support as proposer. Enough is enough. It's I-ban time. --Tarage (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as the target. Merphee has now changed his position on the main area of contention to a much more reasonable one. He is becoming a better editor. I do promise to ignore invitations from him to comment in future. It seems my mistake here was responding to a request from him to comment. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You were literally here last week with the same issue with the same user. Bullshit that you think this is over. You'll be back here in a week. --Tarage (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48 was not the person that started the last incident discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - if they don't interact then there are no problems and everyone lives happily ever after. But this way if someone instigates something in the future it's a short trip down the block-aisle.  MPJ-DK  23:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - this should be about Merphee, not anyone else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I support this if they cannot both agree to voluntarily behave as laid out in the bolded proposal I posted above, yesterday [35], which by the way is standard editing practice, otherwise known as WP:Edits not editors. --- Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Nip this in the bud. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This report has gone in an unexpected direction, given that it was ostensibly a continuation of the earlier conversation about Merphee's behavior. In that earlier conversation, I see some goading by HiLo, but ridiculously over-the-top behavior by Merphee. That behavior was also all over his own talkpage during his recent, mistaken block for sockpuppetry. HiLo's no innocent party here, and I agree with Onetwothreeip that it would've been better if someone else had started this thread, but Merphee is clearly the problem editor. Grandpallama (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• SupportI'm ok with an interaction ban. I just want the extreme incivility to stop. It's not much to ask is it? Yesterday as soon as HiLo48 was out of the picture, we established consensus on The Australian article. And easily through compromise. Interestingly no diffs of my supposed disruptive behaviour since the last time we were here have been provided. This post here was opened by HiLo48 because I supposedly forum shopped, for neutrally posting a concise issue on the noticeboard, like we are supposed to do, and not edit war but that has been proven wrong. And secondly I didn't put a formal notice on the talk page but its been shown I did give notice. What else have I done since the mess at the Emma Husar article? Seriously? As far as my talk page I had to fight hard to prove and get unblocked within 24 hours from a false accusation of using multiple accounts. NeilN asked me to drop the stick after that mess, and I did. So again apart from being treated with extreme incivility by HiLo48 how have I been disruptive Grandpallama? Have you read all of the diffs that SoftLavender took the time and effort to post about HiLo48 commenting on my talk page just for starters?Merphee (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read everything, which is why I voted the way I did. Your rambling rantiness here about dropping the stick while again claiming extreme incivility just helps confirm my perception. Grandpallama (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Merphee has indulged in some serios bear poking and although HiLo48 could have been more temperate in his responses, I simply cannot see the level of "incivility" that is claimed here. I am very dissapointed to see an admin taking such a partisan approach towards the party that has actually borne the brunt of the civility issues. In my opinion Merphee is the guilty party here and is the one we should be considering sanctions against. HiLo48 should be warned to ignore to the provocations of edittors like Merphee who just seem to want to get a rise out of him. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I've interacted on and off with HiLo48 since 2009, and we disagree on almost everything. They are refreshingly blunt (sometimes too blunt for Wikipedia rules) but don't harbor ill will or conduct personal warfare against editors....not even in the "refreshingly blunt" way much less the more common "clever Wikipedia warfare" way. It's always a discussion about the topic. I think that any personal fight is one-way and any restriction against HiLo48 is unnecessary to resolve it. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, so with absolutely no diffs, go ahead and indefinitely block me I guess. Terrific stuff.Merphee (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alex Shih, may I ask why you closed this proposal after less than 24 hours? Softlavender (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, at the moment there does not seem to be a consensus on whether one or both parties are at fault/not at fault in the main discussion above, which I think is the reason for the strong opposition here, from a number of editors and from one of the involved parties themselves. My rationale is that when a consensus is unlikely to emerge for a particular proposal, 24 hours is a arbitrary number that are not always followed (see the closure of the section below this one). In this case, minimising the number of sub-sections would allow people to return to a centralised discussion to find the resolution quicker, instead of having discussions sidetracked. Of course, I am always open to revert my closure/edits if people disagree with my rationale. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The only target opposing is the editor who opened this bad-faith ANI against the other for engaging in proper WP:DR which actually resolved the situation. The others opposing have mostly failed to read the very current issues at hand and are only citing their prior interactions with HiLo48 and/or Merphee. Neutral uninvolved editors looking into the situation have mostly !voted support. In my opinion it's not advisable to close down a discussion before all parties to the thread, for instance Ryk72, and other outside parties, have time to review it and respond. Softlavender (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose 24-48 hour block of [User:HiLo48|HiLo48]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

-Support as proposer. HiLo48, you have attacked nearly every editor who has even slightly spoken out against you. This sort of behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. To prevent further disruption of this process, I propose a 24-48 hour block so the rest of us can hash this out in absence of your constant assault. --Tarage (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Also I suggest someone delete HiLo48's inappropriate user page, which is currently supporting a slew of personal attacks against wikipedia editors as a whole. I have to question why someone who feels this strongly about wikipedia is still here three years after posting that nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have hopes things will improve. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment If an IBAN was established (as per your previous proposal) and both parties stick to it, a block wouldn't be necessary - the only ongoing issue causing disruption the current interaction between them. Girth Summit (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My issue is the disruption caused to the process of discussing this issue. Considering that HiLo48 cannot seem to stop attacking everyone and anyone I feel like a preventative block until the discussion has had time to materialize would be best. --Tarage (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see any attacks against other people in this thread - he's being a bit defensive/snarky, but I don't see anything abusive. If an IBAN was in place, perhaps with a TBAN for both editors for the specific page/s that caused the hoohaa (allowing others to work to a consensus on it), I expect all the disruption would dissipate naturally. Girth Summit (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue at the article in question is now resolved. Merphee has changed his position considerably. There is now nothing there to disagree about. Bringing the problem here has actually led to resolution. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"HiLo48 cannot seem to stop attacking everyone and anyone." Are administrators really allowed to make such ridiculous statements? I have defended myself against inaccurate statements, and received no response except more of the same. Administrators that won't actually communicate rationally are obviously not doing their job properly. I make no apology if anyone sees this comment as an attack. I guess it is, but it's not against "everyone and anyone". It's against someone who wrote something about me that was stupid, ridiculous, and just plain wrong. The sentence I have quoted at the beginning is surely far worse than anything I have said, and I think I have the right to point that out. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarage is not an administrator. Unless I am much mistaken, no one who has yet commented on this thread is. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close

Peace seems to be restored between the two individuals-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, second submission

Originally submitted 3 August 2018, resubmitted on advice of admin Yunshui see: Can someone please deal with my ANI? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite numerous requests to get User:Qexigator to discuss his edits in relation to WP:UNDUE he has refused to do so. I took the matter to DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#"Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" section - WP:UNDUE) whose conclusion included:

• Qexigator's uncivil remarks in a passive aggressive manner discuss the contributor and not the contribution and amount to little more than saying the other editor is being disruptive however, there is no evidence of disruption.

and

• it's an uncivil and passive aggressive tactic to use your own words against you in this particular manner and is deflecting away from the actual argument...that it's undue weight to section off this small amount of almost unrelated content.

As a result I politely repeated my original questions and specifically reminded him to discuss the contribution and not myself diff. I also pinged other major contributors to the article to gather additional viewpoints.

In response User:Qexigator has now posted this:

• Given AGF, I am unable to see what is TVF's problem here. Contributors pinged by TVF, and others interested in npov editing of the content and arrangement of the article for the better information of its visitors, are invited to note reply above (in versions before and after TVF's invocation of "dispute" resolution) as sufficient for the purposes of improving the article. diff

again discussing me rather than his contribution and implying that I am not interested in NPOV, and in removing a thread (which he opened) on his talk page diff his edit summary says, rmv previous (TVF incursion). - definition of incursion.

Please note this matter was previously subject to a 3RR report: 3RRArchive372#User:Qexigator reported by User:The Vintage Feminist (Result: Stale).

Additional info: These threads may also be informative Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#Avoid POV promoting campaign for a second vote and Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Genesis and branding of the Brexit and, as background to both of those, Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Creation of "Calls for a second vote" section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Updated: And now User:Qexigator is insulting me behind my back - an unduly uptight or humourless person (unlike the equable undersigned) might take offence, as if it were a "Personal attack" and persist with pointlessly vendetta-like conduct diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Just spotted this as well: Edit summary comment, in reference to me undue iteration diff. Definition of iteration --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said to you before, "deal with it." This disruptive multiple repetition of something admins clearly consider too petty to bother with makes you look foolish. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well Yunshui clearly feels that it should be re-raised, and I'm very unimpressed with some of Qexigator's comments as well (basically referring to every edit they don't agree with as "disruptive" or "not an improvement"); however, most of this is stale, including the edit-war, and Qexigator hasn't edited for four days. A warning not to belittle other editors and to discuss changes civilly would probably be enough here, I think. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Well, I concur with Roxy's common sense advice above. The other editors of the article evidently accept that the complainant's edit was not an improvement, and reading the entire series of comments in context and in sequence will make it self-evident that the complaint is groundless, there is no case to answer, the complaint should be re-closed, and there should be an end to the complainant's trouble-making conduct in further hassling the party complained of namely.... Qexigator (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

IOnlyKnowFiveWords and United States presidential election, 2020

IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm tired of IOnlyKnowFiveWords's ownership and incompetence at United States presidential election, 2020. They insist on maintaining galleries of "potential candidates" and using (what I feel is) a ridiculous set of rules to include dozens and dozens of people. An RFC I opened on that page has not yet been closed, but I felt there was a consensus the existing state of the page was not good, and yet IOnlyKnowFiveWords continues their pedantic behavior; is it really necessary to note that gadfly Rocky de la Fuente is a candidate for Senate in 7 states? [36]. Or to include Cecile Richards based on [37] (which merely states she might run for any political office) diff but exclude Eric Swalwell diff (the Des Moines register saying he might run for President, as context for his speech at the Iowa State Fair)? And the gallery? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, for the record, all I'm doing is upholding the rules that were set by consensus before I even started editing there. I didn't make any of these rules, I just follow them. They're posted in each category of the article. When someone adds a potential candidate with only one source when it clearly states that at least two are required to be included, I remove them. Similarly, I will undo any attempt to delete the gallery without a consensus. I've always said that if you don't like these rules, to obtain a consensus to change them, which you are already in the process of doing. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Many of the additions have now been removed, and the onus is on editors who wish to add material to seek consensus at the talk page, not on those removing it. So do not edit war to reinstate that material, but instead discuss it at the article talk page and seek consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Just passing by to comment that one user has recently re-added the deleted content by threatening to report and ban anyone who dare to delete it ([38]). Checking from the user's contributions history as well as the page's history itself, it looks like they are one of those who had been adding more and more candidates to the lists throughout the past months. Impru20^talk 15:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment having dealt with "Consensus required" at Donald Trump, I don't believe it works that way. Removals as well as additions should find consensus, unless the material being removed obviously violate WP:BLP or something. Removing the statement that Donald Trump is running for President doesn't meet that threshold. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The material removed blatantly violated multiple policies, and consensus is not required to remove policy-violating material, so, yes, you are wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Article was a complete disaster

United States presidential election, 2020 almost entirely consisted of violations of CRYSTAL, WEIGHT, OR, SYNTH and POV. There doesn;t need to be a consensus for removing policy-violating marerial. I have removed all those elements -- not that I think for a moment it will last. It was truly a piece of dreck, and if the editor reported here is responsible for it, they should be blocked until after the election. Tjis is not someone's personal political blog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, in addition to big "Potential candidates" sections (based, at least as far as a brief inspection suggests, on any kind of media speculation the author could find), there were huge lists of... "The individuals in this section have been the subject of speculation about their possible candidacy, but have publicly denied interest in running". Thanks for the pruning, Beyond My Ken, I'll watchlist it too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going to object to the giant box for the pro wrestler "candidate", but then I remembered that Jesse Ventura was governor of Minnesota, and a bankrupt reality star is president of the United States, so I thought, "Who am I to judge?" EEng 14:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks much better now, thank you. The Moose 01:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected

OK, I hate to have to treat people like children, but people are acting like arguing children and edit warring over this article. So I have fully protected it, and how long that lasts will depend on how quickly the participants can grow up, discuss it on the talk page, and seek consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll just add that I withdraw all opinions on the content, and I've probably protected it at a state that I personally like least, but I don't care about that. All I care about is stopping experienced editors acting like disruptive ignorant newbies - come on, you *all* know that edit warring is not the solution! If any other admin disagrees, they are, as always, welcome to act as they see fit without needing my approval. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the article is under a "1RR, consensus needed to restore a revert". My edits, made consecutively, constitute a single edit for the purpose of counting reverts. The restorations of that material were all made without a consensus to do so, so they are all invalid, and in violation of the DS sanction.

I appreciate the protection of the article, which was appropriate, and understand that full protection is always of the "wrong version" (to someone), but in this case, the restorations were violations of Discretionary Sanctions, so an administrator should edit through protection to remove the material again to uphold DS and policy. Once there is a consensus on the talk page (if there is q consensus on the talk page) the material can be restored, but not until then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The restriction is: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Your initial edit was challenged by Rhian2040, so consensus would be required for reinstating your removals. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the sanction is:

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.
• Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
• This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions: All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

The purpose of the sanction is not to protect the status quo version of the article, the purpose is to discourage edit warring. When two editors restored my reverts, they were violating the sanction. The edits should be reversed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CRP:

Editor1 removes longstanding portion of text; Editor2 reverts, re-adding the text; Editor1 now needs to gain consensus on the article talk page for the re-removal of the text.

Editor1 is you; editor2 is Rhian2040. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The purpose is indeed to stop edit warring, but what I meant to say is that in doing so the restriction favours the status quo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

But in this case the material removed was in blatant violation of SYNTH, CRYSTAL, NPOV, OR, and other policies, including, possibly, BLP. That changes the status of the status quo version, and makes the restoration of it inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be a separate issue. You were first claiming that consensus was required to remove your edits because your edits counted as reverts. While I don't deal with discretionary sanctions or revert issues much at all, I agree with Galobtter interpretation that this isn't a sane interpretation, nor is it supported by normal practice. If you are removing content some of which has been there probably for several months this is not a revert but an edit. I'm fairly sure this is how it would be interpreted at ANEW for example in a typical 3RR case. Therefore consensus is required to restore your edits as they have been challenged via reversion. As for your new point, no where does it say, "except when it's a blatant violation" of any of those. And I'm sure for good reason, otherwise when there is any dispute one editor will simply say it's the case and the purpose of the policy goes to hell. The only one that is relevant is BLP, since BLP trumps all others but it needs to be a clear cut BLP vio not just 'possibly'. Otherwise in cases where there are clear problems it shouldn't be hard to reach consensus there are problems and in the meantime the problems aren't so urgent that they are worth destroying some fragile peace. Note that I actually largely agree with your edits, but they are edits nevertheless and so they require consensus per the discretionary sanctions you quoted. Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The page probably shouldn't be full-protected indefinitely. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

DanielPenfield and archiving

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § DanielPenfield and archiving

For a while now, DanielPenfield (talk · contribs) has been going around talk pages performing general cleanup while also setting up talk-page archiving in a remarkably eccentric manner with misleading edit summaries. He sets up archiving based on date, rather than sequentially, also adds an archive box advert, and sets up archiving on very small talk pages (far under 50K), all of which are highly unconventional for low-traffic talk pages. I despise his archive setup and revert it whenever it appears on my watchlist, per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However he's decided to start a revert war with me at Talk:Keyboard instrument. At the very least I would like him to stop reverting people when they undo/modify his archiving setup(I do archive cleanup too, but if someone reverted my efforts in this department due to strong personal preference/other compelling reasons, I wouldn't mind). More to the point, I'd like him to adopt a more conventional archiving setup and tone down his aggression regarding enforcement of it; if these discussions still failed, I think a block would be in order, but obviously not from me. He is well aware that I strongly dislike his archiving methods]], and I'm not the only one. Graham87 04:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your claim	My response
going around talk pages performing general cleanup	No, I don't "perform general cleanup". I assess articles for various WikiProjects since many WikiProject languish after an initial burst of activity. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising#Article assessment surpasses 5000, for example. If there are stale discussions, I set up auto-archiving. Note that unlike User:Graham87, I respect the archiving method already in use regardless of whether it's manual or automatic.
remarkably eccentric manner	If date-based archiving is "remarkably eccentric", then why haven't you suppressed the use of {{MonthlyArchive}} (created in 2008), {{Yearly archive list}} (created in 2012), and {{Yearly archive box}} (created in 2018) and used your adminship to permanently block their creators, User:Alanbly, User:Ytrottier, and User:BrandonXLF, from editing so that they can never violate your decrees?
adds an archive box advert	Despite your insinuation, I didn't name the parameter "box-advert". See User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis#Cosmetic parameters.
sets up archiving on very small talk pages (far under 50K), all of which are highly unconventional for low-traffic talk pages	As Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive pages states As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. If no one has responded to a discussion in three years, a reasonable person would consider that discussion stale.
I despise his archive setup and revert it whenever it appears on my watchlist	"Despise"? Should User:Graham87 remain an admin? And he wants people to believe that I'm the "revert warrior" despite his outright admission that he reverts on sight?
I'd like him to adopt a more conventional archiving setup	If, as you claim, there is a "single standard method for archiving", why haven't you deleted Help:Archiving a talk page#Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives? Why aren't you reverting, rebuking, and blocking editors who manually archive based on date (see Talk:Dick Cheney, for example)?
tone down his aggression regarding enforcement of it	I see--a double standard where you can write whatever you want in edit summaries, even to the point of issuing veiled threats, but I can't. Also, "enforcement"? If you want to criminalize the use of date-based archiving, shouldn't you first delete Help:Archiving a talk page#Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives, expunge all references to date-based archiving from Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival, and sanitize Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive_pages to state "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions."? Shouldn't you force User:Cobi to outlaw the use of any date-related formatting in the "format" parameter of {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}}?

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll mostly let this response speak for itself. However, I must note DanielPenfield's change to the header of this discussion, which I strongly disagree with (and will revert accordingly) because it misrepresents what I wrote (and I think it unseemly for someone involved in a dispute to make such a change). Also, I think date-based archiving has its uses, but mostly on very busy pages. Graham87 06:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Re "tone down his aggression". DanielPenfield had apparently misused/misunderstood an archiving bot, creating an unholy mess on multiple talk pages. Another editor had brought it up some ten weeks previously yet he was still misusing the bot so I gave him a nudge.

Despite my assertion that I was not competent to bot wrangle, his response bizarrely and sarcastically conflated me and the bot designer as responsible for the mess he had made, by not explicitly disallowing it. For remedy, he did not indicate that he would go back and fix what he had done, instead he had requested the bot designer to create a new task to do that for him. His conclusion further sought to transfer the responsibility to me by stating that I could have made such a request myself "way back when". Of course, I had had no idea as to how he had created his mess, and the "way back when" in question was some 3 hours prior.

No doubt DanielPenfield is a valuable contributor to the project but his manner does it a disservice. Captainllama (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Messing around with talk pages is irritating, but fighting to keep eccentric preferences on talk pages they have no interest in is disruptive, particularly when coupled with an inflammatory edit summary such as "defy His Majesty's decree". The correct response here should have been to back off—posting the above table indicates an entirely inappropriate approach. I support a topic ban although it would be more conventional to do that at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, I thought ANI was more for urgent matters ... I've now read the headers of both AN and ANI and I realise the difference now. I've moved this discussion here accordingly. Graham87 10:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who questioned this. I just brought this up on his talk page about two weeks ago about this method of creating a yearly archive on a talk page, which then added 10 years of discussions onto a single year of 2015. I assumed that this was done in error as this makes no sense. So, I fixed the archive and I was reverted by him with an edit summary of "undo unwarranted and gratuitous change of archiving method". I was a little shocked by that response, since all I did was fix his poor archive method, but then he reverts me with that odd edit summary. So, I reverted him and then left a note on his talk page questioning his reasoning. I then left some further examples on why his method makes no sense. His response was to revert me again with an edit summary of "restore date-based archiving over method completely inappropriate for low-volume talk pages". At that point, I left him him one final note and walked away. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've also had issues with DanielPenfield needlessly reverting my talk page edits in the past. Here are two examples [39] [40]. While he may not have felt that my edits were necessary, I had previously explained to him that I was making those edits as part of a project focused on clearing out a backlog. After another editor opened a thread on the talk page, DP never participated. To be fair, I believe he also stopped reverting my edits, but it was annoying to be repeatedly and needlessly reverted while doing largely thankless maintenance work. Lepricavark (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• This person actually said, "Should User:Graham87 remain an admin?" Well, DanielPenfield, since you're asking, fuck yes. It's funny how you are rubbing a whole bunch of our most valuable admins totally the wrong way, and I suggest you listen to them, and then follow their advice. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

DanielPenfield, apparently, you've learned absolutely nothing from this discussion. This archive method would have put eight years of archives onto a single year. How are you failing to recognize this? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

First another veiled threat. Now you're stalking me because I dare to use date-based archiving as described in Help:Archiving a talk page#Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You have shown a history for not using the correct archive method, so therefore it's completely acceptable to continue checking your archive creations. Can you explain how a date base archive makes sense here? Can you explain why putting eight years of discussions onto a single year makes any sense whatsoever? If this method created a year for each year of discussion (which doesn't really work on a low-volume talk pages like this, but whatever), that would at least make some sense, but this is just dumb. Please stop. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

He hasn't. See below. Graham87 06:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@DanielPenfield: I have the impression that if you setup a yearly archival method it's also your job to chronologically sort and archive threads in their correct year, or to let the bot do that if it can, rather than moving it all in the first year (WP:ONUS is not really about that, but it's a similar spirit)... Then as with anything, per WP:BRD to seek WP:CONSENSUS when reverted. The reason was obviously not "I don't like it", but, "That was wrong", or WP:CIR. —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• DanielPenfield, in your latest revert of me, in your edit summary, you stated "...you claim that you object to one archive containing multiple years and yet your switch from date-based to meaningless sequence number-based does exactly that..." No. Not even close. The sequential numbered archives are set up to put all the discussions that it can fit (by KBs) onto one archive. Once that fills up, it creates a new one. Rinse. Repeat. Depending on how active the page is, you may have ten years of discussions on one archive, or you may have a few months (see one of Jimbo's archives for example). Now let's take a look at our respective talk pages and the way our archives are set up. On your talk page, you have it set up by years and I have it set up by sequential numbers. At first glance, yours looks really good. In fact, I kinda wish I had set my own talk page archives up this way, because it looks nice, neat, and orderly. So, you have archives set up for every year dating back to 2012. If you click on any one of these, you see a whole year's worth of discussions on one page. That's great. That is until you click on your 2012 archive. This is where the problem lies. You have discussions from 2006, so now you have six years of archives showing on one single year. After you set up the archive bot, why didn't you fix this and create a new archive for each of those years? That's where your wrong, but that's your talk page, so you do what you want. If you want to keep up the date based archiving method on article talk pages, that's fine, however you need to make sure it's working properly. What's the point in having a date based archive system if your dates aren't accurate? With the sequential archive, there's no expectation of what dates you'll find on any one archive, but there is definitely one on date based. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jauerback: Oh yes. It even says so in the documentation; see the note for date-based archives. It says that lowercase sigmabot III can overcome this problem, but that bot doesn't archive sections without signatures whereas ClueBot III does. Graham87 05:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that DanielPenfield be topic-banned from any edits involving talk-page archiving, broadly construed, per his general intransigence displayed in the above thread. Pinging the people involved so far: @Captainllama, Johnuniq, Mike Rowe, Jauerback, Lepricavark, and Drmies: Graham87 06:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Maybe an alternative could be temporary 1RR and formal admin warning to not setup archival unless specific criteria are met? Or just a warning for now. I would support the topic ban but at the next ANI discussion personally. —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Striking my comment considering Special:Permalink/835192467#Odd archivebox and Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)/Archive 163#Archive box problem precedent. —PaleoNeonate – 21:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Mild support. Seems like a reasonable solution. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. "Intransigence" seems like a good word for this disruption. He has been asked to stop and continues on, using snide edit summaries. Someone else can archive these talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support I just browsed User talk:DanielPenfield and it shows several sections where editors have raised opinions of poor judgment only to be met with inflammatory responses. For example, ClueBot III archive templates shows a brickwall lack of collaboration. Perhaps DanielPenfield is using the best archive method (I don't know) but fiddling with archives should not leave a trail of bitterness—it would be better if the pages were not archived. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support and facepalm. Talk about uncollaborative and unhelpful editing. Let's just hope this M.O. of "my eccentric way or else" despite multiple problems and multiple good-faith concerns and requests does not continue to carry over into other elements of Wikipedia, or we may be back here soon enough. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I've been flabbergasted by the need to explain this to him and the attitude in return doesn't help matters. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Being honest I was going to suggest this a week ago but figured things may improve .... unfortunately that doesn't appear to have been the case, As someone who routinely archives talkpages there's a simple method > Archive talkpage > paste bot stuff from WP:ARCHIVE > Add the talkpage header = Job done, There's absolutely no need for this pedantic behaviour and edit warring. –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support user needs to find someother hobby than mucking about with the talk pages of others. DanielPenfield, it shouldn't have required an ANI thread to stop what is obviously disruptive, unacceptable behavior.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I hope the proposal isn't so broadly construed that DanielPenfield would not be allowed to archive User talk:DanielPenfield. 134.223.230.152 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd allow him to archive his own user talk page, yes. But it's pretty large ... maybe the archive settings on that page need to be adjusted. Oh the irony ... Graham87 05:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User identity

• Comment/Query Does anyone have the fortitude to examine and compare this contributors editing patterns with the (once?) banned Betacommand? I see a familiarity of poor bot programming for a janitorial task and a response to criticisms of declaring personal attacks without attempting to address the issue. If Betacommand or another admitted alias is still editing on Commons/Simple Wikipedia it might be a simple task to compare times and patterns - and hopefully put this case of spider tingling down to encroaching old age and lack of recent experience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Holy shnikies, it's the O.G. himself!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have looked at some archives at User talk:DanielPenfield and found this and this, which not only clearly a bot response and thus not appropriate use of a talk page (i.e. a means of interaction/communication) but is similar to the (lack of) discussion employed by Betacommand. I am going to pop over to that wasteland to see what terms exist upon the individual behind that username in editing. In other words, I think it is BC under a different name but similar modus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This account is 13 years old - it was created before Betacommand's original account. It's not him. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither was Werieth, according to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wrong ... and I might be again. A 13-year-old account with practically no overlap in editing areas would be spectacular. But I'm looking a bit more closely now. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, well all I'll say is that I can't find any reason why they're not the same person. But equally I can't see anything to say they definitely are. Looking at the timelines are quite bizarre - they have fewer than 60 mainspace articles that they've both edited, and practically all of those are edits years apart ... the ones that aren't (and the closest is 29 days!) are generally because Beta has done some tidy-up or vandalism revert. On usertalk pages, the intersect is because Beta has put a warning message there about something completely different. They've never both !voted on any discussion in Wikipedia space. Normally you'd just say (as I did) "these are different editors". And yet ... I can't find any time-overlapping edits, and I've been through three years so far - but ... perhaps that isn't perhaps massively unusual seeing as DP is a quite irregular editor. One thing though, I'm looking at a few edits, and they're ones like these [41] which are adding FURs to non-free images ... but then Beta used to be more concerned with flagging images that didn't have FURs. But those two things are the only things I can see - and it's very thin. I'm going to look some more, but especially as all CU data for Beta will be stale, I suspect that "suspicion" may be as far as we can go. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah - I think I may have something here. I used XTools to look at time of day editing. Practically all of DanielPenfield's weekday edits are in the six hours between between 06:00 and 12:00 UTC, whilst his Saturday and Sunday edits are spread out evenly - which says to me that's someone who works Monday to Friday. He has practically no edits between 0:00 and 06:00 UTC, presumably night (or the time he sleeps) where he is. Betacommand's graph is very different - edits per day are fairly similar (apart from some odd spikes) for all 7 days of the week, with a big gap from 08:00-14:00 UTC, presumably night/sleep time where he is. Given that, unless they're editing 24 hours a day, or are doing something that I can't work out at all, they're not the same person. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

My suspicions are based on the editors response (or lack of) to comments on their talk pages - the use of a bot which takes the correspondents name and sends a identikit replay (see my diffs above), a habit of not dealing with a bot issue being noted over a number of years, and antagonistic real time responses with the emphasis that as the script is attempting to make edits in accordance with WP policy and thus should not be criticized. I would also note that this is a very long term editor with a low amount of average edits per month - almost certainly a bot - working in the dullest of dull wiki-gnoming areas. Moreover, a bot does not need its operator to be awake while it runs (which might lead to errors not being picked up).

Now, this editor may not be Beta - who was editing 14 years ago, as memory of past reviews serves, but perhaps not under that name - but even if not they need to be reminded what happens to a policy compliant editor who seems unwilling to modify issues with their scripted editing and lack of communication. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree that there needs to be a sanction here, whoever they actually are. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is Betacommand, it would be just ... wow. I didn't have that many interactions with him but I certainly read all about him on these noticeboards. FWIW the DanielPenfield account has made plenty of edits on Commons, and they're pretty bot-like too, like this one, say. Graham87 07:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I am very much out of the loop these days, but I suspect that this place - and this project - still have no authority over Commons. You may need to find both the relevant rules and place to air your concerns over at that project.LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct re authority over Commons. I was really only putting that out here for more data points re times of editing, etc. Graham87 05:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Close

Can an uninvolved admin close this? I think it's run its course. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? Discussion is ongoing as of today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's ongoing speculation about a connection to Betacommand, but not about the topic ban proposal. I think the topic ban proposal just needs the final signature at this point. Mz7 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Francis Schonken

1. On 25 Julyopened a merge discussion, at which he is thus far the only supporter. I opposed the merge.
2. Earlier today he implemented his own suggested merge[42][43][44]
3. I reverted on the grounds that in the case of a contested merge an uninvolved closer should determine consensus[45][46][47]
4. Francis restored his own merge nevertheless[48][49][50]
5. I posted to the article talk page in the merge discussion pointing out the guidance at WP:MERGECLOSE and requesting that he seek an uninvolved closer at ANRFC[51]
6. Francis has since removed my post not once but twice[52][53]

I don't wish to rehash the arguments of the merge discussion here - regardless of the merits of merging or not merging, Francis' actions in this case were inappropriate given his involvement in the discussion. I would like to see the articles restored to their previous state pending an uninvolved closure of the merge discussion, and Francis reminded that it is not appropriate to remove comments from talk pages other than his own. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• There was never a proper WP:MERGEPROP, as tags must be at the top of both articles, and people need to !vote "Support" or "Oppose" for the proposed merger. Also, the proposal needs to be simple and brief (support or oppose rationales, or a "General Discussion" section of the merge debate, are places one can expound on one's thinking). This whole thing needs to go back to the drawing-board and start over from square one (hat or archive that old discussion). I have reverted FS and given him an edit-warring warning. Also, an uninvolved admin should probably close the next merge discussion, so there is no controversy or conflict. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• After fully investigating, I endorse Softlavender's assessment of the situation and their action: revert everything and start over with a properly formatted merge proposal. Francis Schonken has a long and troubled history of edit warring and combative behaviour. If it continues for whatever reason, he should note that in future, sanctions are likely come hard and without warning or discussion at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have also replaced Nikkimaria's comment on the article's talkpage, which FS removed twice in violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity, why did you leave 3 identical warnings on the talk page? One should have been enough. ansh666 03:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• They aren't identical. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I guess Ansh666's main point is that (and this is probably Twinkle's fault mostly) despite of the pages are different, there probably isn't a need for three straight edit warring templates. I don't use Twinkle, so I am not sure what is a better way; personally I would just to write it out manually in this kind of situation since Francis Schonken should clearly know that edit warring is not okay. Alex Shih (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• In case you haven't noticed, as Kudpung states above, "Francis Schonken has a long and troubled history of edit warring and combative behaviour", which includes wikillawyering and gaming the system, so if he doesn't get a specific warning for each specific page, he is liable to claim he wasn't warned if reported at ANEW. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• (sorry for the strange indenting, but...) What Alex said. It'd have probably been better to Twinkle once, then change the text of the template message to include all three pages instead of having the same text three times with one tiny difference (which, yes, I did notice). ansh666 19:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have noticed. And I intend to block Francis Schonken if their next edit isn't to provide a valid explanation here reflecting on their editing behaviour. Alex Shih (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I apologise for my behaviour, which was not conducive to find consensus, nor to a better mutual understanding. The merge suggestion set-up (|section=yes is an allowed implementation of the template; !votes are not obligatory) was rather less the problem imho than my actions attempting to bring the procedure to an end, which was what really caused unnecessary controversy: I apologise again for being at the root of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Francis Schonken at VPT

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is disrupting a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #Blank infoboxes simply to make some sort of point. He changed the indentation of his post to a bulleted list (asterisk markup) from the surrounding posts, all of which use the normal description list (colon markup). The effect of that on anybody hearing the discussion via a screen reader is something like this:

end description list -- end description item -- end description list
unordered list of one item -- list item: "The authority control ... 16:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)"
end list item -- end unordered list
description list -- description item: "Commenting out ..."

In other words, it has to unwind the indentation level of the description lists, then start and finish an unordered list and then wind up the levels of the description lists again. It is completely unacceptable as well as unnecessary to subject visually impaired users to that sort of nonsense, and so we have unambiguous guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists: "... improper formatting can also more than triple the length of time it takes them [screen readers] to read the list. Likewise, do not switch between initial list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) in one list."

Francis has been around long enough to be aware of the problems switching list styles cause to the visually impaired, so I tried to simply correct his switching of list type. He then restored the asterisk markup. So I restored the normal colon markup and drew his attention to the accessibility guideline. Despite having the MOS guidance clearly pointed out to him, he chose to restore the non-compliant asterisk markup, seemingly just to make a point.

He then attempted to justify his position by wiki-lawyering about Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, completely missing the part of TPG that states "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read ... Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment" (my emphasis). The courtesy conventions of not changing other editors' posts carry no weight against the need to keep our content accessible. I contend that Francis has no right to demand that nobody can change his posts from an indentation style that breaches accessibility to one that does.

Nevertheless, I tried one last time to fix the problem with the indentation style and warned Francis that I would raise the issue of his behaviour at ANI if he persisted. His response was to yet again restore the markup that he knows causes problems for the visually impaired. The point has been reinforced by Guy Macon (apologies for pinging you, Guy), but Francis has shown no sign of accepting that his actions are disruptive, breach our accessibility guidelines, and cause noticeable issues for our users who make use of assistive technology.

I think it's time that both we and our visually impaired readers were given a break from Francis' poor behaviour and that steps were taken to ensure that he does not repeat the same behaviour in future. I request administrative action to make sure that happens --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• If they're fucking up the site so visually impaired readers can't contribute, then it's time they were shown the door (and for what it's worth, feel free to fix my post here so it works as you want/need it to). Endorse any sanction upto and including an indefinite block. Nick (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• In discussions all over Wikipedia, there are often combinations of bulleted comments and comments indented with colons. Just look at this page, for example. Use of a flush-left bullet directly under a threaded conversation normally means this is a new idea unrelated to the conversation immediately above. I've never seen anyone take issue with it (heck it is Drmies's normal commenting style), and to change the bullet without permission and threading it differently is actually a violation of WP:TPO, as it changes the meaning of the post. Softlavender (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: Just because lots of editors make posts that cause problems for users of assistive technology doesn't make it right. The problem per se is easy to fix: stick to one style of indenting in discussions, as we have done here. Most editors understand the issues when explained to them and change their bad habits. My complaint is not about an editor mistakenly using markup that breaches our accessibility guidelines; it's about an editor who wilfully and persistently repeats the same breach of our accessibility guidelines multiple times after the issues have been pointed out to them. I've now seen that Francis later also reverted Redrose64 who independently had fixed Francis' markup in that thread. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • RexxS, you violated WP:TPO by completely refactoring the format and position of FS's post, thus changing its meaning, and without an edit-summary explanation that would warrant that change. FS changed it back, as he should have, to preserve the meaning and placement of his edit. The fact that a free-for-all edit-war then ensued is really not actionable on FS, unless some sitewide policy is instituted that directs people not to use the standard flush-left bullets when making a new unrelated comment or adding a new unrelated thought. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • This removal broke the threading, and I had to go back to the history to make sure my reply hadn't been moved to become a reply to this comment. Natureium (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • RexxS, I'm a huge fan of promoting, even enforcing accessibility. For me it's been limited to colors and signatures, but I thank you for pointing this out to me (to us). Yes, Softlavender, I've switched too and never thought twice about it; on occasion I "correct" things as well (you know, when the asterisk sequence is broken), and I do sometimes use asterisks in a coloned discussion for emphasis. But now that I know, I am going to be much more careful, and I want to thank Rexx also for the translated code; now I understand it better. As for Schonken--well, if I'd done what they did, and you'd revert me and put the link there and an explanation, I would accept it. That they don't is a mystery to me. I can't judge right now if all the proper steps were taken (Softlavender says there was no edit summary the first time, and that's important), but what I can say is that I fully support the principle. And I also support us admins enforcing accessibility--though I realize many of us probably need to learn what that means, with yours truly certainly being one of them. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've gotten into edit wars over this exact same issue on more than occasion, I've used :* and * in all of the years I've been here and continue to do so to this day ... Not because I'm being awkward ... but because that's what I've been used to using for the past 5-6 years ...., Not really sure on a way forward but blocking or sanctioning is certainly not the solution, This whole issue varies from editor to editor really, Maybe an RFC would be best ? dunno. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: But if multiple other editors point out to you the accessibility problems that switching indent styles causes and fixes the markup, do you then insist on restoring your version five times? I really hope not. I disagree with your suggestion: surely we don't need an RfC to confirm our accessibility guidelines? There would be no point in having any policies and guidelines if we had to have an RfC every time somebody breached them. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't believe I restored it five times but I certainly would've said it was 3 or 4 times certainly, Funnily enough I wondered the exact same after posting that suggestion .... As I said all editors are different and all have their ways of editing so maybe an RFC on deprecating :* and * in favour of more accessible ways would be better ? .... That still might sound dumb but as I said we all have our ways good or bad, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• • I always try to match the existing thread so the layout is consistent and easy for people to follow. I don't understand why someone would wilfully choose to break the layout consistency particularly when they've been informed it makes WP inaccessible for those who have accessibility issues and rely on things like screen readers. It's trivial for us, for anybody who uses a screen viewer, it's shutting off a discussion or a page. If people went around blanking whole sections of talk pages, they would get a block bloody quickly for disruption - I do think we need to be as radical with behaviour which breaks accessibility software, but only AFTER its explained to them. Nick (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• I thought that this was generally handled by copying whatever the other replies to a post are. If it starts off with bulleted replies, follow suit. Ditto for colons. I haven't been able to find any rhyme or reason other than this. Natureium (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • FS wasn't replying to anyone, he was making a new unrelated comment. Therefore he used a flush-left bullet, which is standard for that. Softlavender (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Does it matter if you're replying to a specific person or giving your general thought in reply to the topic? It still makes sense to just go with whatever has been used before you, although I don't think it's anything worth edit warring over. Natureium (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am pretty confident nearly every editor has responded on a talk page style discussion (which VPT fall under) with the "wrong" indentation marks, so let's not bite FS on this issue. I do agree editing warring to keep what style you want when another editor has changed it in trying to harmonize the discussion, particularly if that change is meant to help follow the various threads, is a problem. As long as it is not changing the level of indenting so its still clear what the reply is to, that should be a non-controversial change of another's talk page comment, and making a big deal about it is a problem. --Masem (t) 22:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Schonken has no leg to stand on here. Regardless of one's opinion about switching to bullets mid-discussion, he had zero support against four established editors (me, RexxS, Redrose64, Guy Macon) telling him he was wrong—and pointing to the applicable PAGs. This is Schonken removing my don't-template-the-regulars reasoning on his TP without a response. That's the behavior of an editor who does not wish to edit as an actual member of the community, and in my view unacceptable from an editor with more than a year or two of experience. I support any admin action. Softlavender, the appropriate place to challenge long-existing behavior guidelines is not in ANI complaints. I'm quite confident you've known what the guidelines said for years. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've switched from bullets to an indention mid-discussion? Natureium (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Scroll up. This discussion started without bullets. Per guidelines, all bullets in this discussion should be removed. If I bulleted, I would be adding to the problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Nick made the first comment with a bullet, establishing the style. (RexxS posted the original discussion). This is why I say I'm confident every editor has made this "mistake" and thus biting FS on that aspect only makes no sense. It's the fighting to retain the error that is a problem. --Masem (t) 22:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is biting FS for making the initial mistake. We are strongly objecting to his behavior following the initial mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The only policy FS violated was edit-warring, and edit-warring reports belong at WP:ANEW, not here. Usage of flush-left bullet points for brand-new points (as opposed to replies) is standard. RexxS violated WP:TPO by refactoring FS's post in a way that changed its placement to look like a reply to the post above, without permission and without explanation. Those are the only two PAG violations I see in this entire matter. Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would likely support a proposal to change WP:TPO (and/or some other explanatory guideline text) to allow for modifying other people's comments to retain a single indentation style. For now, however, I don't think we have any requirement. Doing something repeatedly after you've been told it negatively affects the experience of people using screen readers may make someone insensitive (at the mild end), but it's not, at this point, a blockable/sanctionable offense to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  I am considering suggesting the above change at WP:TPOC. If anyone is interested in helping -- or wants to talk me out of it -- please start a conversation on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  WP:CREEP. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  You should know better than to label a fellow editor a creep. EEng 02:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  Hell no. EEng 02:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If some feel the existing language at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#fixformat is not clear enough, then by all means clarify it. Clarification is never CREEP. If others feel that the guideline does not reflect current community consensus, I welcome them to test that theory with a public discussion (I'd suggest WP:VPP). Simply claiming that such a consensus exists without being able to show it, while multiple established editors are disputing that claim, is not constructive. Barring such a public discussion, the reasonable default assumption is that the longstanding guideline reflects community consensus, as guidelines are supposed to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a rule about this. If you feel strongly about someone's bulleting/indenting, fix it, but if they undo it, they must feel similarly strongly (or are just being obstinate, though it doesn't really matter which one), and you shouldn't try to redo a "helpful correction" if it's been undone. I can't imagine many people are going to feel strongly enough to undo someone correcting their format, but this isn't something worth starting an edit war over. Natureium (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: You do understand that this is about accessibility, not aesthetics? If so, you're saying you don't care about accessibility—even considering WMF's longstanding position on it, shown in the lead section at MOS:ACCESS? Is it really that difficult to not type an asterisk? Are we talking about an undue burden on members of the most adaptable species on the planet?
Yes, it does matter if they "are just being obstinate". Per the almost-universally-accepted essay WP:IJDLI, we need to articulate a cogent reason for the things we do or the positions we take, and not all arguments are created equal (if they were, we could just skip the arguments and vote). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Bruce Ohr, or why the argument that "don't delete the article, just have experienced editors watch it" is a hopeless cop-out

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So we have a biography of Bruce Ohr, a heretofore-obscure civil servant in the United States Department of Justice. But now, Ohr's been mentioned in the highly-partisan and disputed Nunes memo and has been targeted in tweets by Donald Trump. So of course, like moths to the candle, the biography has been targeted by edit warriors attempting to declare Ohr part of a deep-state conspiracy - stating as fact that his "corruption" has been exposed, using such sources as The Daily Caller and breathless FOX News coverage. This issue was reported on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, where I observed the thread and responded.

The article was a mess of partisan mud-slinging, so I nominated it for deletion on the theory that no article is better than a bad article. Cullen328 helpfully responded that "I disagree that the solution to POV pushing in this biography is to delete the biography. Instead, the solution is for experienced editors to watch the article to be sure that it complies with WP:NPOV and other content policies."

That would be great, in theory. But of course, no other experienced editors volunteered to watch the article to be sure that it complies with WP:NPOV and other content policies. So it's devolved into edit-warring noticeboard threads because it's basically me alone against a bunch of IPs and one devoted edit warrior who believes that sourcing from The New York Times is "POV."

I'm about ready to just give up and throw in the towel. Because it's one thing to to say "Hey, don't delete these crappy articles, just get more people to fix them." It's entirely another thing for anyone else to step up and help fix them, and it's simply not happening. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the WP:ANEW thread wasn't sufficient here. Or how NBSB can complain about POV pushing with a straight face after this diff. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That said, the article indeed is a disaster. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, yeah. power-enwiki waded in briefly, realized how much of the article was based on partisan hearsay and nonsense, and abandoned it. QED, we have a problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that 1RR hurts more than it helps on "breaking news" articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• NorthBySouthBaranof, your name was still on my clipboard since I just posted on the AfD, asking you to withdraw. Please do thrown in that towel, but not this one: editors like Cullen and me, and a host of other ones, do keep eyes on articles, including biographies that are the target of POV editors. The moment this president starts tweeting, the ripples on that article will subside, and in the meantime there are indeed editors to watch over these BLPs. That in this case it hasn't happened yet, maybe, that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not even going to address the merits of this here. This is not the place for content disputes and the filing can be summed up with two words: Forum Shopping This should be promptly closed.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am more than happy to discuss this article (or any other article) with NorthBySouthBaranof (or any other editor). Of course, I recognize that the article is a POV magnet but last time I looked, that wasn't a valid rationale for deleting an article. I am willing to help improve the article, maintaining NPOV. But this entire matter is just another routine content dispute, isn't it? Why is this an "incident" that needs to be discussed at this noticeboard? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• If there are NPOV problems in an article on VCR repair or zither tuning then yeah, that's a routine content dispute. The main difference (at least to me) is that BLPs need special care. You're right that serious difficulty in maintaining POV problems isn't a rationale for deletion. But maybe it should be for BLPs, given the potential for real-world harm to ordinary people like "heretofore-obscure civil servants" from dodgy stuff about them in a top-10 web site. (And yes, I know that's a policy decision that we can't decide here.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at the article. The text in the section on the Nunes memo was sloppily written, and was obfuscatory and sinister-sounding in the same way that the articles Peter Strzok and Murder of Seth Rich were once upon a time. I just read the RS and added text to the section that reflected what the RS said. As always, simply following the RS fixes all the problems. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, can an admin protect the article? The page is now getting vandalized. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware that the outer limits of the extraordinary measures needed to maintain NPOV extended as far as articles a trifle more controversial than zither tuning or VCR repair. Since the beginning of this project, we have dealt with disruptive POV pushing by normal editing, and sanctions, if necessary, to control or exclude disruptive editors. I see nothing in this case that requires us to deviate from our normal procedures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jeffman12345 persistent block evasion, rapid disruption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jeffman12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been IP hopping and causing massive disruption to many pages. Many of his edit summaries are similar. We need an edit filter to circumvent his edits. Also, a lot of his edits appear to be done by proxies. funplussmart (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And yes, I do know about WP:DENY; I only posted this here because it needed the urgent attention of admins. funplussmart (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It may be worth considering an edit filter, but at this point just blocking the IPs as they appear may be sufficient. Even the densest vandals who do this recognize fairly soon how much of their time they are wasting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

About the edit filter, I requested one at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_12#Jeffman filter. funplussmart (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

OH yeah that one *yawn*. Thanks for requesting the filter. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Good. I've been blocking the creations in the meantime :-)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have noticed this as well. His "father" has been asking for him. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be getting quite a lot of his nonsense on August 12th of the Current Events Portal' Icarosaurvus (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

His latest favorite trick is replacing Wikipedia namespace redirects with some vulgar message. Patrollers seem to be picking them up pretty quickly, but special attention needed to these? David Brooks (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. I've waited a few days to be sure, and he seems to vandalize every day like some manner of perverse clockwork. It is slowing down, but I'd rather not have such a public facing page vandalized at all, if possible. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Well, as advised above, this seems to be a "chronic, intractable behavioral problem." Article was protected for a spell against the subject's IP edits; now the main account has returned after four years to delete content he doesn't like. I don't know whether to request another page lock or a user block. Discuss. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The article was at one point burdened by a lot of trivia, POV content and innuendo (see the Talk page archive), but that's been cleaned up for a while now, and the more recent excisions have been unwarranted and, yes, chronic. A user block might or might not be effective, because he just edits from IPs. Page protection too is only as good as long as it's in place. Beyond those two things I'm not sure what tools exist to resolve the problem. FWIW, several editors appear to have the page watch listed, and pretty quickly revert these changes as they occur. It's an annoyance but IMHO not much more. JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Points taken. My observation, perhaps a bit draconian, is that if the abundance of IPs--not to mention the registered account--have not been a net constructive presence here, then the main account can be blocked and the article indefinitely protected. Too much WP:OWNERSHIP by the subject. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I do think that indef page protection isn't generally favored and so just offered the observation that, to me, the disruption isn't that great in the larger scheme. I intend it as information rather than any kind of challenge! JohnInDC (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it. Thanks John. John and others you know the problem. Although the page has been cleaned up from 4 years ago, Bang and others continue to add material that is not factual but rather insinuates unethical behavior on my part. The entire Digi paragraph is a good example. There is no wrongdoing, actually no story. At the very least wait until a final resolution. John that was your view and yet you backed down to Bang’s pressure. You all know the way things are phrased or arranged can determine what a page is saying. My page is not an encyclopedia but rather a gossip page which is why I have asked afor a group of independent editors to take a quick look. Short of that I try and make changes. Also, obvious additions are not made like my most recent election as Democratic National Committeeman, and Chairman of the Metro Board for the third straight year, or my contributions to Metro. Why is that? Anyway, please take a look and let me know. Thanks. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:4D3D:5B0C:6939:C452 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

On final comment. I went back and read some of the entries from exactly 4 years ago this week. Why can’t you fix my page and leave it alone. Why are you constantly adding gossiping information. It’s been 4 years!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:4D3D:5B0C:6939:C452 (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unconstructive modifications by User:Scout_MLG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I am French (sorry for my english) and I usually make small edits on military and weapon pages. Since several months, I noticed on my watchlist that User:Scout_MLG is adding a lot of strange edits :

- unsourced edits : for instance [54], [55] or [56]

- personnal point of vue : for instance [57], [58] or [59]

- dubious edits : [60], [61] or [62]

- stupid edits : [63] (an US mortar used during Soviet War in Afghanistan ?), [64] (Stingers during Sino-Vietnamese War ?), [65] (T-90 in Afghanistan ?)

He has been warned that he was making "silly edits" by User:Thewolfchild but is still going on. A large part of my edits is going through his edits to undo them. He has also been warned that he needs to provide sources by User:Garuda28 (User_talk:Scout_MLG#Rifles_and_other_weapons_edit), by User:TasticalHic (User_talk:Scout_MLG#Armor/helmet_edits) and by myself (User_talk:Le_Petit_Chat#hello).

What should we do ? Is there a simple way to undo all his dubious edits ? I am not a specialist in ammunitions used by firearms so I do not know if some edits, for instance this one are wrong or not.

Thanks--Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say unless the user can explain their edits in a convincing way, a block should be considered.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, this user appears to have done "extended confirmed grinding" as stated on this earlier thread. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 14:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have reverted all of Scout MLG's many unsourced edits (except for one listing ISIS as an enemy of the US) and left a warning on his talk page. Scout MLG has made some ok edits [66] [67] [68] [69] but most of his edits have been additions of unsourced content[70], often wrongly listed as minor edits, they have also made a few edits like this [71], adding bans to policies. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Scout MLG just said that he doesn't know how to source [72], so I gave them a link to WP:REF, this may just be a new user who doesn't know what they are doing yet. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to teach Scout MLG how to fight vandalism, per their request, and they seem to be doing ok, I think this is a new user who needs help, and a block would violate AGF. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Thanks for your help. Are you willing to keep an eye on and help this user? I'll be honest, I would otherwise be leaning towards a WP:CIR block, but if you think they have potential and are willing to help guide them then I think that would be an even better outcome. Swarm ♠ 22:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm:Yes, I have been watching them and they seem to be learning how to do counter-vandalism work, I understand the CIR concerns, but I think they have potential to be a productive user. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User who seems a case study in WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

John2o2o2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently had an encounter with another editor on talk for InfoWars and something about his comportment struck me as off. Here's a diff containing the bulk of our interaction: [73]. In that time, he !voted twice and complained he was censored when another user reverted. He complained he was being harassed and also made statements that were borderline anti-Semitic. So I did some digging and found a history of behaviour over several years that included treating talk pages as soapboxes, prejudicial statements and complaints of harassment when challenged:

With regard to the Scotts language

[74] [75]

With regard to the word "villein"

[76]

With regard to the marriage date of Dorothy Vernon

[77]

With regard to Campaign to Protect Rural England

[78]

On an Administrators' noticeboard discussion of the block of the user Clockback

[79]

People sometimes get passionate and overreact on talk pages; goodness knows I've lost my cool a few times in the past. But there's a difference between that and a very specific pattern of problematic talk page behaviour. As such, I thought it appropriate to bring it to this venue. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of these diffs are quite old, but the user is somewhat clearly showing a pattern of using talk pages not as tools for discussion toward improving the encyclopedia, but rather as forums for free comment on article subjects, and advocates the sort of "Free Speech" wherein the user can say whatever they want and nobody is allowed to challenge it because Free Speech. Clearly that's not how Wikipedia works. I don't think there's a sanction in this, but the user ought to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a forum or soapbox, that talk pages are for discussing editing, and that many free web hosts are available upon which the user is free to say whatever they like about immigration in rural England. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the OP (I advised the OP to open this thread on my talk). Editors who immediately attack others by accusing them of harassment are not editors who need just a little gentle guidance to get along. I would give this editor the choice of taking mentorship or a WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE block. I'll volunteer as the mentor if that route is taken. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite six years on Wikipedia, this user is still basing his position in content disputes on feelings, opinions and assertions. Sampling through various disputes he has been in over the years, I do not see any attempts to appeal to either policies or reliable sources. Generally, it simply appears he likes to chime in to discussions even when he has nothing useful to add, though he probably doesn't realize he has nothing useful to add. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

They do seem to overly rely on emotive arguments. But (to be fair) have also been subjected to some PA's. So it is hard to say which came first, their reaction or the reaction to them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I saw, the PAs came after they made some comments which were, at the very least, antisemitism adjacent. And that doesn't change that their soapboxing is a trend throughout their time on Wikipedia, which has not been short. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I saw they made a very poorly worded comment about double standards about what is and is not fart right, which was overreacted to (and both it and the replies to it can all be seen as soapboxing). There were ways it could have been argued against without recourse to name calling (such as "there is more to being far right then backing Israel").Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Now now, Slatersteven. So typical of Wikipedia's liberal bias to talk about the "fart right". Bishonen | talk 17:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC).

Well they do have Trump as a figure head.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just coming back to revert my regrettable silliness. Too late. 😐 Bishonen | talk 17:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC).

This user was not subjected to personal attacks: They were subjected to some (overly, I would agree) vicious criticisms of their comments. But given the nature of the comments that inspired said criticism, I'd not even bother warning the editors who responded. That comment (the first diff from the OP, the one in the first paragraph) was just one set of triple parentheses from being an indef-blockable act on its own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticizing Zionism as it pertains directly to the Israeli policy of occupying Palestine isn't necessarily antisemitic, but an account with a history of anti-immigrant and prejudicial rhetoric bringing up the supposed Zionism of the Wikipedia founder as an opening remark is somewhat different; and that's part of where my concern arises. This is a contributor who is WP:NOTHERE and part of their MO seems to be to insert dog whistles into talk page commentary. That's not something I'm willing to leave unchallenged. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There is enough blame to go around. What is a Trollometer? Please search within the RfC for "Trollometer". Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As I just said, that was about the editors comments, not about their person. And frankly: I agree 100% that the comment this was said in response to looks like a poor attempt at trolling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It is nonverbal. We try to use our power of speech. We don't draw pictures. Why don't we draw pictures? Because some of us don't have artistic skills. Wikipedia is not predicated on the ability to communicate nonverbally. A user cannot be expected to respond with a little picture. Therefore we stick to verbal communication. Nonverbal communication that implies a user may be a "troll" constitutes a personal attack in my opinion precisely because it cannot be responded to using the same means of communication. Therefore the bottom line is that we must stick to verbal communication. That is basic. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is -frankly- one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard in my entire life, not just here, or recently. Congrats. Your every premise is false (that text is "verbal" communication, that some people can't understand charts, that charts must be responded to with other charts, that there was no "verbal" -meaning "textual"- communication in Guy's trollometer comment and that Guy's comment couldn't have been read without the chart and produced the same exact meaning), your conclusion is utterly ridiculous (that we should only communicate using text) and your implication (that there is some policy or widely-followed guideline requiring us to only communicate using text) is obviously false, as any experienced editor knows. Literally every single aspect of that argument is fatally flawed in such a way that its flaw alone would damn that argument to logical failure. I will be saving the diff of you making it, as the argument is so phenomenally bad that I'm actually quite impressed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so that was a real "chart"? Forgive my ignorance but I wasn't aware of the Trollometer. I assume you will be creating the article on the Trollometer? Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's some irony to be observed in a user trolling over a graphic depiction of a Troll-o-meter. But, since you've started talking about him, it would be a courtesy to ping JzG to let him know. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops, that should be Guy Macon. Sorry, Guys! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not trolling. Actually John2o2o2o took the nonverbal goading with aplomb. They responded "Lol, thank you. How sweet. I'm very flattered." Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and in the same comment, the very next sentence in fact, they added the equally ironic "ad hominem attacks are very typical of liberals", and then proceeded directly into more ad hominem attacks on Jimmy Wales. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hence my initial post—"there is enough blame to go around." Whether you harass a person verbally or nonverbally you are raising the temperature in an already contentious environment. But give the user a break—John2o2o2o also is subject to getting agitated in response to the harrying behavior of those around him. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No he did not he acted like a tit, even blaming me for removing a post of his I did not. At the very least he does need to be told to not go out of his way to have arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I think "likes to chime in to discussions even when he has nothing useful to add, though he probably doesn't realize he has nothing useful to add" probably applies to around 90% of the population of (pick any country) ;-)

But yes, the practice of using talk pages for airing his own opinions and then lashing out with harassment claims when people disagree (including "Leave me alone", "I'm not talking about this any more" etc) is antithetical to the way we work here. I don't think any sanctions are appropriate now, but mentoring could be worthwhile if he'd accept it - and we already have a volunteer! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If they'd accept mentoring from MPants, that'd satisfy my concerns for the time being. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So if they accept mentoring form a user they are in dispute with? That seems to be a very odd solution. I agree mentoring is a good idea. But surely it should be an uninvolved user?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This editor was in dispute with you and Guy, not so much me. Besides, all I did was say I was willing; something that I doubt many other editors would do. I've volunteered to mentor at least three other editors formally, and at least one of them is fairly productive, last I checked. So if you know of someone better suited than I, I'm more than willing to step back and spectate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Given they explicitly asked you to leave them alone [[80]] is this a reasonable request to make of them. Especially this [[81]],. which seems a tad antagonistic to me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, you once thought me making the most inoffensive joke possible was a beyond-the-pale personal attack, so forgive me if I doubt your judgement on these matters. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm impressed you all have the patience to even offer mentoring as an option here. Near as I can tell, this user's primary interaction style with anyone who presents evidence which is contrary to his established position on anything is to pitch a tantrum and falsely claim they are being harassed. This isn't a noob who has not had time to become familiar with Wikipedia behavioral standards. There are diffs above dating back to 2012. This is a person who has had plenty of opportunity to learn the way the project expects us to behave; he just willingly refuses to do so. I say he's had his mentoring; in the 6+years he's been doing this, he's been directed to the relevant policies and guidelines many times. He just refuses to abide by them. At this point, I'm not sure Wikipedia has anything to gain by keeping him around. --Jayron32 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Even a "noob who has not had time to become familiar with Wikipedia behavioral standards" does not deserve to have a pictogram thrown at them as that is not how we operate around here. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Even a "noob who has not had time to become familiar with Wikipedia behavioral standards" does not deserve to have a pictogram thrown at them I'm beginning to wonder if your activities in this thread might rank higher in that pictogram. I'm dead serious, by the way. Poe's law and all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought I already said that I'm not trolling. You don't see the validity of my point. Fine. I have a detractor. You are welcome to your opinion. But I deny that I'm "trolling". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• As I've noted before John2o2o2o is pretty much a "free rider" on Wikipedia. The account's been open since 2012, but in that time they've only made 221 edits, and of that paltry number, only 34 (15.4%) are to articles. The most they ever contributed to any one article is 4 edits to Ancestry of Elizabeth II. What they seem to like to do is talk: 187 of their edits (84.6%) are to Talk, User Talk, Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk. They have no edits to files or categories or any other space which would indicate they they were working to improve the encyclopedia in some non-Mainspace way. [82]
  In short, this is not an editor who's contributing to the project in such a way that we should tolerate any eccentricities or problems connected with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Bullshit. We shouldn't tolerate "any" eccentricities from anyone. But we do. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well, "Bullshit" right back at you, we're tolerating yours right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Aside from any "eccentricities" I may be displaying I think it is an undeniable fact that many indulge in "eccentricities". I understand your point that "this is not an editor who's contributing to the project in such a way that we should tolerate any eccentricities or problems connected with them" but participation in a straight-laced manner is hardly a defining feature of this project. Examples are too numerous to mention. Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not meaning to be argumentative. Striking through my post alleging "bullshit". Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've struck mine as well. My point is that Wikipedia is --whether or not anyone wishes it or acknowledges it -- mostly a meritocracy, so the more you contribute to the encyclopedia, the more leeway you are usually afforded. It's not a one-to-one relationship, and -- obviously -- even very, very prolific editors can and do get blocked, indef blocked and banned, regardless of the value of their contributions; being a high-volume or high-quality editor is not in any way a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. However, with someone who contributes very little, or -- in this case -- almost nothing -- there's really no wiggle room at all. It's simply not worth our time and effort dealing with their disruptive behavior as we wait for them to become a constructive editor. This editor has had six years to become a valuable contributor, and what we've gotten is a measly 6 article edits a year and a bunch of crap. The upside is simply not worth the downside. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Whilst I have some sympathy there is (and even I can see that) a difference between an overly forthright users who actually, make valuable contributions and a user who just appears to think this is room 12.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudos. I do love a good Monty Python reference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously a well thought out and non-drastic response is called for. That means giving the person a chance, and another chance if necessary. The encyclopedia functions on the participants' ability to speak—both in article space and on Talk pages. I also engage in a lot of palaver on Talk pages, but I try to do so respectfully and I try to promote forthcoming dialogue. Such dialogue is all but obviated by resorting to pictograms. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you recall above, where I pointed out that Guy's textual comments retain the same exact meaning as the combination of his textual comments and the ascii art chart? Because it's still true. For someone who claims to be an artist on their userpage, you seem to have a highly irrational distaste for visual communication. Also, please read Poe's law if you're not familiar with it. You may very well be earnest, but someone trolling by picking the absolute most ridiculous line of argumentation from which to defend this editor would very likely have made the same arguments you have. You've been told by two different editors now that you appear to be trolling this thread. If you really are arguing in good faith, then maybe you should ask yourself why two different editors agree that your arguments are of such a low quality as to appear to be trolling, and adjust your view of this issue accordingly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't do "visual communication". Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Explain Filespace, then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify. We don't do visual communication when it serves the purpose of putting down another editor. Not only is it disrespectful but it frustrates response. The advantage to verbal communication is that it facilitates dialogue. We are at our best when we communicate with crystal clarity, not with the relative clumsiness of pictograms. Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So (and let me get this straight your objection is not to calling him a troll, but doing so with a picture as that is harder to rebut then just saying "Your a fucking troll piss of you vile piece of rectal sputum"? You really think that would not shut down any chance of dialogue any more then a drawing of a pile piece of rectal sputum?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. I should have said that "the advantage to verbal communication is that it has the potential to facilitate dialogue", but the references you are suggesting would cancel out any of the advantages that I had in mind. So I stand partially corrected. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said I think many parties are at fault here. It does not alter the fact his opening salvo was needlessly confrontational and looks like baiting. I agree the correct response was not to post silly Trollometer pictures, but to point out how their argument was facile and really stunningly weak.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

And there wasn't a verbal response that could have accomplished all that and more? Damn, this language thing is overrated. Couldn't we go back to screeches and growls? Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that is what I just said.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Sorry about that. Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how impressive feats of sarcasm are doing anything to argue against my initial complaint that @John2o2o2o: has a long history of using talk pages as soapboxes and refusing to assume good faith when other editors challenge them. It's all rather befuddling that they haven't come to speak for themselves when another user with no prior involvement seems to have taken it upon themselves to become such a strident advocate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not such a strident advocate. Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions over the long haul, while for the most part they did not advance matters, it's only in these last couple of days that they have moved beyond being mostly a distraction, and at that it's only because they posted in the middle of a discussion where people wanted to argue anyway. By my standards they show a lack of competence, but my standards are surely higher than what would be the norm here, and I'm inclined to let this blow over, because I don't think a long term block would go over well, and there seems to be no point to some short term action. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a long term block would go over well Could you expound upon that? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A short term block may be appropriate. Honestly I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is just getting bizarre now. OK as his only defender has said short term block I will support it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Also fine with a short term block. Basically all I ever wanted out of this was for the original user to be aware that his pattern of behaviour had been observed and found inappropriate. Whether mentorship, a short term block or some other action does that I'm less concerned with the details of the action than making sure they receive the message.Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Short block: 24-48 hours. With a good explanation for the block. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of opposed to a block at this point. The user hasn't edited in a day, and signs are they won't be back to that topic; a block wouldn't be preventing any disruption. Some kind of summary of everyone's thoughts in this thread (we all seem to agree their style of argument is disruptive and not really working towards improving the encyclopedia) posted on their talk page as a warning (and marker for when it happens again) ought to suffice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic material about ASCII art

A Word From The Artist:

A comment on my talk page asked me "please not discus a user in article talk space. Take it to their talk page please." [83][84] The more I think about it the more I am convinced that responding to obvious trolling -- even with a bit of (I hope) humorous ASCII Art -- was the wrong decision. Long experience by many people for many years has clearly shown that the best response to trolling is no response at all. (In the case of Wikipedia I would modify that advice a bit and advise reporting severe trolling -- which this wasn't -- at ANI). So I apologize and retract my Trollometer comment. Alas, human nature seems to move us to respond...

Or, to put the above in (I hope) humorous ASCII Art form:

    |                                            .--.
    |                              ______.-------|  |
    |                             (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |    __..--``--.._               __/ `-------|  |---,
    |                 ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
    |    __..--``--.._         |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
    |                 ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
    The plug is pulled.         `--.|_/          |  |  ||
    Ignored is the disruptive one. ____\ .-------|  |---`
    Feed him I will not.          (_____(        |  |\\\\|
    |                                    `-------|  |
    |                                            `--`

    Responding just 
    encourages them! 
           \ 
            >') 
            ( \ 
             ^^` 

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I find your use of ASCII art not to be highly offensive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we can explain to John2o2o2o, using ASCII art, that they must not pick fights on Talk pages and that their past behavior has been considered by many here to be inappropriate and that our fondest hope is that they become a productive editor and that the least desirable outcome is that they will be blocked if all else fails but that we are hoping that it doesn't come to that. If we can do that then we will have proven that ASCII art is a worthy alternative to plain old boring English. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable to require that someone who refuses to listen suddenly start listening as the only outcome that will cause you to accept ASCII Art. I expect the following to be no more and no less effective than you writing "our fondest hope is that they become a productive editor and that the least desirable outcome is that they will be blocked if all else fails but that we are hoping that it doesn't come to that" was.

 [___] <--- Block.
 
 >:0   <--- Disruptive editor.
 
 [>:0] <--- Disruptive editor blocked.
  
 :-) :-) :-) :-)  <--- Other editors are happy.
 
 >:)   <--- Disruptive editor decides to stop being disruptive.
 
 :-) :-) >:) :-) :-)  <--- EVERYONE is happy.

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary

• Summary from Simonm223 (talk · contribs) My concern when I filed this ANI request is that I don't think John2o2o2o (talk · contribs) is here to contribute to building the encyclopedia so much as to pick fights on talk pages and then run away. That said, they've never broken Wikipedia policy so severely that a ban would be appropriate, and their history of fight-picking is so varied that a tban would be useless. Ultimately I'm mostly concerned that the user get the message that their behaviour has been noted and is considered inappropriate. I am not particularly concerned with the form that message takes so much as that they receive it. The truth is, if their pattern holds true, they probably will vanish from Wikipedia for a few weeks before popping up on another talk page somewhere to try and pick a fight there so I don't see them as being a substantial risk to ongoing discussions at InfoWars. But this is somebody who has participated on Wikipedia for quite some time, and encouraging them, somehow, to try and make their contributions more productive would be ideal. Honestly I most like the idea of them taking on a mentor; but their unwillingness to participate here on this talk, despite being notified on personal talk and pinged at lest once within this conversation makes me feel this is unlikely to occur. Won't be putting up much of a stink about any outcome; just hope there is one. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

^This. Like, 100%. It reflects my feelings exactly. I'm perfectly willing to help them become a productive editor, but if that fails, or if the community doesn't cotton to that idea, then we should just indef them as being NOTHERE and be done with it. There's absolutely no upside to us just doing nothing and hoping this editor sees the error of their ways all on their own. None whatsoever. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

[ec] You might want to copy the following to your local disk:[85] I will be removing it in a few days. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Basically where I am as well. They may not contribute much, but most of the time their non-contributive posts are at most a mild nuisance. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply give them ample time to respond to this thread, and, should they fail to do so, block them until such time that they address the concerns. Communication is, after all, required, and this editor does not seem to avoid getting into discussions. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Six years of being a "mild nuisance" without substantially improving the encyclopedia, is too much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• I confess I haven't read the entirety of this enormous thread, but I agree with BMK. The pie chart does not look good: [86]. If they are generally not contributing to the encyclopedia, and they are creating more heat than light, unless they come to this noticeboard and make a good case for themselves and for their own rehabilitation, I think a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• MPants at work—I see here that you remove the post of John2o2o2o with the edit summary "you don't get to !vote twice". I think that is heavy-handed. Just one suggestion among many possible suggestions: you could have only changed the word "Oppose" to "Comment". It rattles a person to be treated unfairly. This is not unlike the use of ASCII art to imply that someone is a troll. Uncoincidentally you and Guy Macon (author of the ASCII art) oppose the position taken by John2o2o2o in the RfC in question. As I said with my initial post in this section—there is enough blame to go around. I don't blame John2o2o2o for responding "I note that you have censored my last comment."[87] And I don't blame John2o2o2o for responding "Please stop harrassing me...I am not trying to vote twice."[88] There is a problem here of using a Talk page as a forum. The posts of John2o2o2o are sometimes problematic in that they engage in unnecessarily wide-ranging arguments, resulting in heated exchanges with opposing editors. But they are in turn subject to provocation from more seasoned editors. John2o2o2o has been editing for a lot of years but with relatively few edits. But harassing such an editor is highly unfair, in my opinion. This isn't a project for only a small crew of editors with intensive input. We should value the editor with limited time to become thoroughly familiar with how we operate. In a sense John2o2o2o is a newbie. We should be especially accommodating of those unfamiliar with the way this place operates. They may be a pain in the ass but their presence has the tendency of preventing us from becoming calcified and set in our ways. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What is your end goal here? To get me blocked for reverting a duplicate !vote? To get Guy blocked for daring to be humorous? To get a policy set that forbids the use of visual communication? To ensure that this editor remains free to jump into talk page discussions they clearly know nothing about, vent their opinion and then throw a fit when others disagree? Seriously; every possible outcome of you "winning" this argument is a negative. How have you managed to not figure that out by now? Come on, man. Every reasonably smart person has the right to engage in some stupidity from time to time, but you gotta learn when to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor who has been here six years is nowhere near a newbie. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Every reasonably smart person has the right to engage in some stupidity from time to time, but you gotta learn when to stop." Am I engaging in "stupidity"? Learn to treat people respectfully. I am not rattled by the implications associated with "stupidity". But others might be. I think you should try a little bit harder to treat people with respect. (And no, I am not trying to get you blocked, as you suggested.) In that same RfC, named Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"? you took to task an editor named Israell over their user page. Was that germane to the RfC? Or is that an example of WP:SEALIONING? You ask me "What is your end goal here? I have to think about that. I don't know that I have an "end goal" but I would say to you that I think you could tone it down. OK, I've got an end goal. I had to think about it. It is to lower the temperature of the dialogue in contentious settings. And I think that is a worthy aim. Bear in mind the question in that RfC: Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"? It is not an unusual sort of issue to be addressed on an article Talk page but I think it is a relatively unimportant question. The term "far right" is open to a wide range of interpretations and many sources from many perspectives can be expected to be seen having bearing on this question. It is understandable that editorial opinions would be all over the map. It is especially important to tone the rhetoric down when it is opinion that is being discussed. After taking the considerable amount of time it took to read that particular RfC I come to the conclusion that John2o2o2o engaged in the sort of arguments that should definitely be frowned upon in these sorts of discussions but that it is also problematic to provoke unfortunate responses only to try to paint them in an AN/I setting as entirely at fault. I don't think they are entirely at fault. You provoke responses from people when you say things like "fix your damn userpage: Wikipedia in not the place for you to promote yourself."[89] Surely you are not surprised when they respond "Fuck you! Who the Hell do you think you are?"[90] Does this really belong within the context of an RfC on Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Hansthewiki's disruptive editing by posting unreferenced edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has been reverted by a couple of editors including me. The user has been asked by myself to provide a reference(s) in my edit summary and the editor's talk page, only to post in my talk page, to tell me that he doesn't care and that I should just let him. He also asked two other editors to stop reverting his unreferenced edits.[91] [92] These are the articles that the said editor has continue to disrupt: List of programs by GMA Network, Ika-5 Utos, Magasawa, Magkaribal, Hindi Ko Kayang Iwan Ka and My Special Tatay.Hotwiki (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• The user also asks others to "trust" him while he himself is violating an important policy. Hell no. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at his editing history, going back five years, I don't think he has ever used references (edit: Oh, once he used instagram as a reference). Like, not even bare urls. Most he's ever done is add a link to an official website in the external links section. There could be a language barrier issue since he's from the Philippines. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Hotwiki: your warnings to the user were not very civil, you come across as a bully, and people have a tendency not to hear advice when it's shoved down their throats by bullies. We have a series of templates for this, starting with {{uw-unsourced1}}. Use them from now on.

Ponyo has already warned the user properly, I will warn them one more time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't bullying him. I asked him to post references with his edits and what he did, is he told me through my talk page, that he wouldn't do it again and yet he did. If that's not trolling then I don't know what it is. What's so uncivil about my actions? Also I have done my research online and there's no official statement yet when those shows are ending or premiering. He's basically using his own assumptions. And forgive me, if I dont have the patience to chill to editors who are trolling and don't know how to listen. Hansthewiki got the reaction out of me.Hotwiki (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There are many people in this world that are as stubborn as a mule. Not surprised. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Hansthewiki's reactions are not ideal, but I can't help noticing that the warnings you gave, before you got the reply on your talk page, were rather terse and did not actually explain what was required. For a user who is not very good at English (actually, for many native English-speakers as well), a first warning consisting merely of "Learn to post references" is not particularly helpful. That's why the templates are useful, they include a whole lot of information for the user as well as a warning, and we often have to do a bit of extra explanation when dealing with non-native speakers. --bonadea contributions talk 13:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

My reactions only sounded tense due to him not listening and not having the urge to actually back up his edits. His edits were unreferenced and they were reverted because of that, and that was mentioned in my edit summarises. And his disruptive edits didn't happen in a day, it was continuous to the point that I had to post in his talk page. Then his first reply was "I don't care" and posted his unreferenced / guess edits. Clearly that is someone who isn't respecting Wikipedia's policy in using references. I didn't attack him personally, I didn't even comment when he posted in my talk page because I didn't want to be negative. I wasn't bullying him. I also warned him more than once, hoping he would listen, so he wouldn't be reported to Ani right away, and he didn't listen and here we are. Hotwiki (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bacardi2018 using user page as sandbox, against community consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bacardi2018 has been using his user page as a sandbox. That's the primary problem. As he gets to a final state on a section or sometimes the whole page, he copies the content to the original article. This often overwrites changes made between his copy and the current state. More often than not, the additions are unsourced. The community discussed this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bacardi2018. The article was deleted and Bacardi2018 did not participate. In fact, the editor does not bother to use edit summaries or respond to talk page notices and questions. I am assuming an editor who is not comfortable writing in English. At any rate, after the page was deleted, Bacardi2018 started back. The editor has restored partial content from 2018–19 UEFA Europa League a total of three times since the deletion. The first time I reverted. The second time I reverted and warned. I am reporting the behaviour on the third time in less than three hours.

Not sure if this is a problem or not, but I'd rather not have to go through another MfD discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that they can create User:Bacardi2018/sandbox 2, User:Bacardi2018/sandbox 3 and so on if they think one sandbox is not enough Hhkohh (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think there is any rule against using your main user page as a sandbox if you want to do so. The issue in this case, and the reason why the MFD last time, is that the user did not attribute the text when copying it, per WP:COPYWITHIN. This can usually be rectified with a simple comment in a dummy edit, though it would be helpful if Bacardi2018 would acknowledge that they have understood this. Either way, both Bacardi2018 and Walter Görlitz were edit warring over the page, even if neither reached the 3RR limit, for which I award them both a hearty WP:TROUT.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree. The issue isn't using a sandbox at all, it's what it's being used for: a staging area for unsourced changes that will go on to overwrite other content later, but I do love trout. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Hundreds upon hundreds of editors regularly use their user pages this way. If there are substantive problems with the subject's editing, those should be detailed. Otherwise this is timewasting windmill-tilting. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There are substantive problems with the subject's editing detailed on the MfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Since when have MfD's been the appropriate place to discuss "substantive problems with the subject's editing"? 31.49.219.1 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It might be wise for an uninvolved admin to take a look at what has been going on on Bacardi2018's talk page. It seems to have become a dumping-ground for improper accusations of 'vandalism', and of deletion templates etc that entirely fail to explain what is going on. Faced with that sort of welcome, I'm not surprised that Bacardi2018 is uncommunicative. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Just fast reverts. I have not accused the editor of vandalism. The editor had a welcome much earlier than the MfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it was you that made the accusation. The fact of the matter however is that immediately after the usual Teahouse invitation, there are a series of posts which make exactly that claim. None of which seem to refer to any edits made by Bacardi2018 which fit the definition in Wikipedia:Vandalism. Putting myself in Bacardi2018's shoes, I think I'd have difficulty not coming to the conclusion that disputes over Wikipedia content were conducted through false accusations, invocation of unexplained jargon, and random deletions, rather than through dialogue. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

But the previous warnings are not the issue, using his talk page as a staging ground for unconstructive edits is.

As for through dialogue, the editor has not responded to any comment on their talk page. We cannot force the editor to dialogue with us. Feel free to attempt to explain the situation to the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You may think that the hostile behaviour exhibited on Bacardi2018's talk page isn't an issue. I do. And again, I would ask that an uninvolved admin take a look. It is probably too late to avoid this particular contributor forming a thoroughly negative opinion of the way Wikipedia newcomers are 'greeted', but maybe a lesson or two might be learned for next time. Assuming that Wikipedia still wants newcomers, and that it doesn't now demand that they sit a five-hour exam in Wikijargon first... 31.49.219.1 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop with this devil's advocate nonsense. The editor clearly has seen their talk page, because they have spammed shit on it and deleted things from it. If an editor doesn't see all these warnings and at least make an ATTEMPT at communication, they do not have the competency to edit Wikipedia. To suggest that this is a newcomer being bullied by the system is disingenuous. Stop. --Tarage (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson in hostility. 31.49.219.1 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion by EscapeX: rangeblock?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Blocked user EscapeX has been using IPs in Scotland to make a bunch of troublesome edits at articles about the Jackson 5 and Michael Jackson. The most recent IP range is Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:D62A:7C00:0:0:0:0/64. EscapeX was dedicated to the Jacksons topics, the same as this IP range.

• The IPs are edit warring to change a quote to say "Diana Ross" rather than "Diana" as in the original.[93][94][95]
• The IP wars a fact into a falsehood.[96][97]
• The IP wars to change the Bad (tour) into the "Bad World Tour" in contravention of the consensus obtained at Talk:Bad_(tour)#Requested_move_2012.[98][99][100] Note that the consensus was unsuccessfully disputed by EscapeX.[101]

Is a rangeblock appropriate? Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Range blocked for one month. Swarm ♠ 01:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Electoral 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Electoral 2020 should be blocked for personal attack. --Panam2014 (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they have never been warned properly and might have no clue that this is not ok. They have also not been warned against edit-warring, which is likely to get them blocked much sooner.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disrupting editing, deleting talk page posts, uncivil wikithreats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jytdog deleted comments by two other editors, 62.11.0.22 and HiLo48. They were discussing neutrality of the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The pretense was that they allegedly violated WP:NOTAFORUM. When I restored the messages[102][103], the user reverted me and templated my talk page[104][105]. Attempts to discuss the matter on his talk page [106] made no impact. I.am.a.qwerty reported that this user used WP:NOTAFORUM as a pretense in a content dispute on another article as well[107]. Heptor (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse the hat. That’s clearly a personal POV-driven rant as opposed to an unbiased assessment of the article’s neutrality (i.e. an objective assessment of the article’s text compared against the body of sources). Unacceptable conduct for a talk page, particularly one under discretionary sanctions. Swarm ♠ 13:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• I also endorse removal/hatting and had previously removed the talk page comment as a COI-inspired rant. Fell afoul of WP:NOTAFORUM at very least and doesn't belong there. Despite "free speech" arguments made, Wikipedia is not bound by US First Amendment responsibilities, nor should it be. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Comments by three editors has now been aggressively removed or hatted (JC7V7DC5768 [108], HiLo48 [109], 62.11.0.22 [110]). This has no basis in policy. Free speech is a fundamental pillar of any free society, not just the US Constitution. We need to be able to have a discussion about neutrality of that article without without getting steamrolled. Heptor (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Hmm "aggressive hatting". Sounds like something I should try. Kindly explain how one conveys "aggression" via template:hat, if that's what was used. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  Well, I think the aggression was conveyed through the promptness and persistency of the said hatting, through the fact that the comments by HiLo48 and by JC7V7DC5768 were deleted and not just hatted, and through immediate placement of level 2 and level 3 templates on my otherwise lovable personal talk page. If you want to try it IRL, try placing a hat on someone who don't want to wear a hat, and yell that anyone who attempts to remove the hat will get suspended from school. Heptor (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, it certainly wasn't a "Let's chat about this" kind of approach, was it? More like "You're expelled, and don't ever come back" approach. There's been a lot of that kind of behaviour around around that article over the years. I wonder why some feel the need to behave that way? HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse the hatting, and I've moved the hat down after Heptor tried to continue the thread on the talkpage. Heptor, please read WP:FREESPEECH and WP:NOTFORUM. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for debate, and talkpages are for discussion of specific means of article improvement, supported by sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously Wikipedia runs by its own bylaws, not by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I am familiar with WP:NOTFORUM, it prohibits discussions that are not related to improving of the article. Posts by IP62 and by HiLo48 discuss the content of the article, in particular the issue of its neutrality and selection of sources. So they are not falling within WP:NOTAFORUM, and even if they were, the bar for editing other people's comments is high. As mentioned in WP:TALKO, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". Could you please clarify how your position on hatting these comments fits with the editing policy of this project? Heptor (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct -- Wikipedia runs by its own bylaws, not by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• from their first revert on the basis of liberty of speech and all (edit note), and since they wrote in that diff, I will indeed defend to the death wikiblock his right to say it. Yes, per Evelyn Beatrice Hall. (strike in original) and since they have persisted (as noted above) since I warned them that they might indeed find their privileges restricted or removed, it appears that a short block is in order to prevent further disruption and help them see that there is indeed no "free speech" here; such claims are based on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what editing privileges are for. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I note my comment has now been completely removed. That is censorship. It contained specific content about improving the article by removing some unacceptable, biased content. Content that came from a blatantly biased commentator. I gave reasons. No reason was given for the removal of my comment. I also got an unacceptably threatening comment on own Talk page from Jytdog. This is a classic example of the bias of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

So your follow on message there had edit note Russia haters and you added yet more personal opinion in the thread. All inappropriate for an article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

When I studied negotiation skills many years ago I learnt it was important to try to understand the real goals of those disagreeing with me. The Russia haters comment was a guess at the real motivation on display there. I could be wrong, but since you gave no reason at all for deleting my comment, I feel entitled to hazard such a guess. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

So Tony Abbott [111] is the problem, and it's important for you to air your views about him on that talkpage? I'm just guessing about your real motivation, mind you. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

My views on Tony Abbott are echoed by the vast majority of Australians, the people more likely to be right about him than non-Australians who just happen to like what he said in an uninformed, anti-Russian rant. Yes, I do find it problematic that content from a rant by a now discredited politician is given such a high profile in our article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Then suggest reduction or removal of Abbott's comments without mounting a soapbox to air your views about Australian politics. For my part a wholesale axing of reactions by politicians in response to tragedies encyclopedia-wide would be a valuable improvement, but I would rather express that on its own than add in my views on the individual politicians. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

now unhatted and a further comment giving yet more opinion. Some blocks would be preventative here. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to explain what is wrong with the comments, rather than appearing to simply want to silence people. I unhatted the thread to demonstrate that the claimed consensus for content in that article is opposed by several editors. Do you not want that fact known? HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at the hatted (and later deleted) IP comment, to me the main problem was that it was an unformatted wall-of-text and thus appeared to be a drive-by rant rather than a comment on the article. If someone had attempted to insert some paragraph breaks rather than simply hat and dismiss it, it would have been more helpful in my opinion, since at least two experienced editors, Martinevans123 and HiLo48, agreed with them. (Please note: I have no comment on the validity of any of those three people's points.) I support restoring the IP comment, and perhaps adding in some para breaks, since two editors have responded to that comment. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just make sure you're going by accessibility guidelines, Softlavender. You and I both have a lot to learn in that area. Also, please remember that Martinevans is best known for trivializing intensely serious discussions on admins' talk pages, and HiLo is on the side of football, or soccer--sorry I forgot which. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to direct the attention of the participants of this thread to entry number 1 at WP:OWB. Entry number 15 may also be of interest. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no relevance, unless, as one who complained of censorship when his comment was removed, with no explanation, by someone who happened to disagree with me, you are accusing me of being up to no good, and thereby attacking me. Maybe that's not what you're doing, but it's not clear. Perhaps you need to elaborate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just going to say that you might benefit from a reading of WP:1AM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

49.180.48.193 vandalism only ip

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The edits by this ip consist of nothing but vandalism but no admin has yet taken action. Akld guy (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

TYVM. Akld guy (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paid Editor from Upwork removing COI trmplates and AFDs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A paid editor is removing AFD template and COI tags. Lydia Janssen and Andrew Gruel. I accept I am also a paid editor, who was not hired for this job. Check user's IP location, you will link 100 paid and spammy accounts. Check his links with USER:Gharee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.11.58 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yet another violation of IBAN by Alansohn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alansohn was IBANed for interacting with me here. In that ANI discussion it was specifically proposed that "This would specifically mean no participation in AfDs started by Rusf10". On April 1 he first violated his IBAN by responding to a AfD I started which resulted in a 48 hour block [112] He has now done exactly the same thing again here. To be clear, Alansohn has never edited the article Andrew K. Ruotolo, so I don't know what his interest is in the article. It appears that he is again following me around in deletion discussions. Since this is now his second violation of the IBAN, I believe a more severe sanction is necessary this time.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• NeilN, you blocked last time. I see a clear violation of the iBan; in fact I see a good reason to renew it. Alansohn, I don't know what you were thinking--am I missing something? Drmies (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • • @Drmies: For what it's worth, NeilN might not contribute to this discussion. He's been gone, probably on a break, for just over a week now. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:A59D:FEDA:2161:43E (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies, the AfD came up on my watchlist equivalent. I paid no attention to who had nominated the article, as it had appeared that the editor in question had stopped editing for a few months. I will self revert the edit in question. Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Find this very hard to believe, especially since you took the time to look at the previous AfD. Also, I have not been inactive "for a few months".--Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies, the vote has been removed. If I had believed that the editor was still editing, i would have been more careful. Alansohn (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies This is the link that I use to monitor articles. It turned up a new AfD and I had been more active at AfD over the past few days for articles listed on my "watchlist". I looked at the new AfD, the old AfD and the article, never paying attention to who had nominated the article for deletion as the editor in question had apparently disappeared. Now that I know that this will be an issue, I will be far more careful. Alansohn (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to remark that I had recently wondered whether Rusf10 had stopped editing, or just gone on a summer holiday. I notice him because he often nominates article for deletion and iVotes to "delete" articles on notable topics that merely seem to need to need better sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The IBan was in late March 2018: [113]. Rusf10 has been editing steadily and continuously since at least November 2017, without break [114], so Alansohn's explanation doesn't make much sense, especially since he said he also looked at the old AfD from six months ago which was also nominated by Rusf10 and which Alansohn had also !voted on [115]. Looks like a clear violation to me. --Softlavender (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No, Rusf10 stopped editing about a month ago, and just came back. Also, it seems to me that the last time I waded into this Rusf10 vs. AlanSohn thing, that it was two sided. This AfD is a rerun of one in which both editors were involved before the IBAN. and it makes me wonder why the IBAN is not applied to both editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • He had a 3-week gap from July 21 through August 12. Why were either of you tracking his edits? Softlavender (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, it's not months, but after checking the edit history there's a gap of nearly four weeks with no edits. Again, if I had known or even thought to check I would have. The vote has been removed and I will be far more cautious in the future. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No, he's made at least 150 to 875 edits per month since October 2017 [116], the only gap is a 3-week gap from July 21 through August 12. The fact that you were ever even tracking his edits does not look good for your IBan situation. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Softlavender, I'm not sure what the number of edits per months has to do with the fact that there was a gap of several weeks where there were zero edits and the only reason I thought it was longer is that there were no potentially overlapping edits for several weeks more. I'm not sure why there was a gap of several weeks, but I had seen no edits after what looked like an abrupt disappearance. If I had thought that the editor was still editing I would have checked more carefully. My guard was down because of the lengthy break. Alansohn (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
        • First of all, why were you tracking his edits? If you have an IBan with the person, you should not be doing that. Second of all, you claimed the gap was "nearly four weeks", when it was only three weeks. Third, if you were tracking his edits, and you looked at the previous AfD of that article which he had nominated and you had left an lengthy, detailed vote on 7 months ago criticizing the nomination [117], and you cited your previous !vote and the previous outcome in this current !vote [118], it beggars belief that you didn't check who re-nominated it. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment/suggestion (edit conflict) Whether Rusf10 took a couple of weeks off is completely irrelevant to the situation, he nominated the article for AfD. I consider it to stretch credulity that an editor exercising even minimal care at Afd – ie reading the nomination statement – would fail to notice the nominator, especially considering the history of this. Also, the IBAN does, in fact, apply to both editors but the particulars of each are different. Among other things Rusf10 voluntarily accepted his restriction while Alansohn's had to be imposed at ANI.
  At this point, based on as I remember it, Alansohn not really acknowledging that their behavior has been problematic that it is time for more serious sanctions to be applied. Maybe a two week block to get the point across to him and thereby prevent the further disruption which is assured should he fail to get said point. Jbh ^Talk 00:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• I also think that Alansohn couldn't have missed the nomination/statement nominator, but I hate blocking for this. The last block was a while ago. A two-week block is maybe warranted technically, but it's harsh. Rusf10, please do not think that I am not taking this seriously because I have in the past criticized you: Alansohn has spoken much harsher words about me, and I probably about them. Or I'm in a good mood cause the dishes are done and we made delicious muffins for tomorrow. Anyway, I suppose we could see if there's more admin input. I favor a warning (I think this counts as one) and, as I said before, maybe we should renew this iBan when it expires. After all, if there've been only two infractions, and thus tension was relieved for all those months, one can say it works, no? Plus, OH, never mind: I see now that Sarek already dropped the block. OK--I don't like it but I can't disagree. Alansohn, please be more careful next time... Drmies (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies:, I'm glad you at least acknowledged WP:INVOLVED this time. Take your own advice and let's get input from other admins.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Rusf10, please don't shift from asterisks to colons in mid-conversation. Secondly, I acknowledged no such thing, but nice try. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Drmies:Wow, you are incredibly arrogant. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you are WP:INVOLVED since it is "construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." The rules do apply to you, you are not above the law.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm goodlooking too. Stop pinging me: I am not interested. You can't manufacture a conflict and then claim someone has one with you. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Not really, I've seen pictures. With your attitude (not just with me, towards others too), someone really should consider a desyopping case for you. You're lucky that I don't have the time for that right now.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Rusf10, a word to the wise: Your over-the-top personal attacks here are way out of line, and are not helping your case. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) That's not going to get any traction. Some editors simply do not get along but this is not the hill to die on re this conflict. INVOLVED does not address conflicts where an administrator has expressed 'strong feelings' which may be perceived as being indicative of a loss of objectivity as a result of administrative interaction. Considering the ways such a rule could be gamed the best that can be done is to politely request the administrator to consider their ability to engage as an administrator and depend on their personal ethics and introspective abilities to withdraw. Alternately, I guess one could take it to AN but I doubt such a request would be received with sunlight and kittens unless one had a very good argument and lots of diffs to demonstrate loss of objectivity.
              I have no opinion on the validity of the issue raised but I can pretty much guarantee that repeatedly bringing the matter up on every encounter is going to significantly weaken any position you may have – if the above commentary has not destroyed it outright. Jbh ^Talk 02:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
              • @Jbhunley:I'm not going to lay out the entire case here (its not the time or the place), but these two links will provide the background if you're interested [119] [120]. In the second, realize that I'm not the only one to tell Drmies that he is INVOLVED. I find it disturbing that he is the first admin to show up here when there are plenty of other who could deal with this.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week, per previous block for 2 days, and highly unpersuasive defense here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Extension of IBAN?

Can we extend Alansohn's IBAN? It is set to expire in about a month. Since he has violated it twice already, it seems that once it expires it will be back to business as usual for him.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support extension to indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite IBAN extension (edit conflict) per the existence of two documented violations. There is no evidence that any finite expiry can be set. Also, @Rusf10: I assume you will continue with your voluntary restriction as long as the IBAN is in effect, is that correct? Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:If the community wants that. Remember, only Alansohn has violated his restriction, not me.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

After the initial period expires I think whether you continue yours is up to you but whatever your choice I think it would be good for people to know as they consider this. My preference would be to simply continue with the status quo – it has worked, it keeps the people from seeing the situation as somehow "unfair", and it shows you are willing to go 'above and beyond' to insure things remain calm – but I see no reason for the community to force you to do so. Jbh ^Talk 02:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support --Swarm ♠ 03:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite extension. I'd also support some manner of warning/action against Rusf10 per WP:NPA. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Opposeindefinite extension of the IBAN. It seems very possible, although irresponsible, that the violation was unintentional, and he self-reverted when notified. However, it also seems possible that he was testing. Either a short block or a shorter extension of the IBAN would seem more appropriate. We are not here to punish editors, but to encourage them to behave maturely so the encyclopedia can be improved.Jacona (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  I'm changing to Support, if considered with the proviso per power~enwiki and JzG (allowing non-personal AfD comment where Alansohn created or substantially edited an article.

• Support, with block- yes, the ban should be extended to indefinite. But it should also come with a block of some duration, otherwise what's the point? What difference would it make to extend the ban if Alansohn can break it whenever he wants, as often as he wants, with complete impunity? Reyk _YO! 11:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just noting Alansohn was blocked for a week for this violation. Jbh ^Talk 11:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Yeah the excuses above lack any credibility. Its one thing to accidentally comment in a discussion someone you are ibanned with has also participated in, its another to comment on a proposal that was explicitly opened by the person you are ibanned with. Its entirely unbelieveable that you could vote at AFD without reading the nominating statement, and if you genuinely are voting at AFD without reading the nominating statement, you need to be banned from AFD. And I dont think anyone here thinks Alansohn is that incompetent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support increase in length to indefinite. Something needs to be done. We don't need a Site Ban, although stubborn editors should bear in mind that that is the ultimate remedy. Extending the IBAN is less drastic than a TBAN from AFDs, so extend the IBAN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
• Support The explination of not knowing who started the AfD might hold water if there were dozens and dozens of comments, and the editor picked it up by chance. However, at the time of the comment from the diff above, only TWO other editors had commented. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that they didn't see who had started said AfD. If the current block, and the (seeming) consensus here isn't enough, then we all know where this will end. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef IBAN - Which part of "There is a consensus in support of this proposal: Alansohn is banned from interacting with Rusf10, subject to the usual exceptions,"[121] is hard to understand ? ..... As they've now twice violated it it should be extended to indefinitely and if they continue they should be shown the door. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite IBan because the one right now will not work (see everyone else's rationale for why). Abequinn14 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite IBan with a clear indication that further violations will result in much more severe general sanctions (longer/indef blocks). It's pretty clear the community is tired of this behavior. John from Idegon (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional Support if Rusf10 is allowed to nominate for deletion pages created by Alansohn, he should be allowed one comment in response (focused on whether any reason for deletion is met, not Rusf10's motivation for nominating the page). I don't feel the situation here has been resolved, so I can't support allowing the IBAN to lapse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support with caveat allowing non-personal AfD comment where Alansohn created or substantially edited an article. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional Support per power~enwiki and JzG (allowing non-personal AfD comment where Alansohn created or substantially edited an article), but I'd also like Rusf10 to voluntarily pledge to avoid interaction with the user, as Jbhunley mentioned above. Edit: Though, the latter is not a condition for my support. Just something that'd make the whole situation easier. byteflush _Talk 23:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Other than at ANI, I don't believe I have interacted with him since the IBAN has been in place.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Of course, I realize that, I was just asking if that would continue if IBAN was extended. I know it probably would, but it's better to have it explicitly said; I'm not accusing you of anything, or saying you violated your voluntary IBAN. =) byteflush _Talk 00:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support with power~enwiki's and JzG's proviso; this should be extended to indefinite; though Alansohn can make one single content-based defense of AFDs for articles that he has contributed substantial content to. The ban should not expire, and Alansohn should avoid directly interacting with Rusf10. --Jayron32 15:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at Pritish Chakraborty

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP user 27.106.98.222 appears to be making legal threats against a Wiki user at Pritish Chakraborty - see edit summary (sorry, I don't know how to add a diff link). PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h, as it seems to be a dynamic IP, any sock can be blocked on sight.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That article was created by Nikunj rathod (talk · contribs), apparently an associate of the subject, and heavily edited by IPs and Ascentpc (talk · contribs) (note that Ascent is the film company started by Pritish Chakraborty). Similar COI concerns with

• Article Mangal Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Article Chal Pichchur Banate Hain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Romir Manchanda (talk · contribs)
• Romir manchanda (talk · contribs)
• Adarsh sahu (talk · contribs)
• Sakshisachar88 (talk · contribs)
• Bollywoodhelpline (talk · contribs)
• Fridaymoviez (talk · contribs)

Can some admin more familiar with current practices in the COI area see what needs to be done with the pages and users? Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

By Xsnapdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at user talk:Jim1138#Please stop the actions towards defaming our national treasure. diff Jim1138 (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverts and copyright violations by Учхљёная

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The user was blocked twice earlier this year for edit-warring and for disruptive editing. They were featured twice at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#User:Учхљёная, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Ongoing disruption by Учхљёная The problem with their editing is that they are interested in anthems and insist that the articles about anthems should include lyrics even if those are copyrighted. (There are also other problems with their editing, but this are not important for the time being). If others disagree, they start edit-warring. Today, I have noticed this edit on my watchlist, which restored the text of the anthem (it was essentially a revert to one of the earlier versions of the article). I blocked the user for two weeks and revision-deleted the edit. But then I noticed that the user performed today a large amount of similar edits (examples: [122], [123], [124], see the user contribution for the full list). Should we may be indef them and be done with it?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, they filed an unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the lyrics are copyrighted: the matter has been discussed in several places, but a recent one one I remember is Talk:Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. I do not see how this discussion applies to the anthems of federal subjects of Russia, and I do not see how these could be in the public domain, but may be it is worthwhile discussing once.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I think that if there's anything wrong with this editor, it's their penchant for edit-warring and the habit of introducing obscure, unsourced, and seemingly possibly made up transliterations and transliteration schemes. – Uanfala (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uanfala, we don't have to be "sure" that outside content is copyrighted, we assume that by default; unless it can be clearly and convincingly demonstrated that it is not under copyright, we don't host it in this project. I blanked Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic and listed it at WP:CP (several days ago) for exactly that reason – unless someone can convincingly demonstrate that the author of the lyrics, the composer of the music and the author of any translation have each separately released their rights in their work, we consider them to be protected by copyright. Only if we are sure beyond reasonable doubt that they did so can we consider whether to host that content (on which topic WP:NOTLYRICS is good reading). Regardless of what happens about the block of the combative Cyrillic-named editor, we're going to have to clean up a lot of articles. A WP:CCI may be the best mechanism for that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not acquainted with any of the pages concerned except Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. By "I'm not sure the lyrics are copyrighted" I meant "There's compelling evidence presented on the talk page that the lyrics are out of copyright, and there's no evidence to suggest they aren't". Regardless, agreeing to leave that to CCI. – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Учхљёная. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Champion. I've blocked the reported account and one IP as obvious socks; the rest of the IPs reported there were already blocked. They were still editing from the IP address while their main account was blocked, so I've reblocked them indefinitely for the block evasion. I've also revoked their talk page access due to disruptive unblock requests, and I will scan pages they frequent for the necessity of semi-protection. Regards, Swarm ♠ 23:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, there's far too many pages to semi-protect. I think we should just protect on a case by case basis going forward and continue to document the IP socks at the SPI to see if rangeblocking would be feasible. Feel free to bring any issues directly to me as well. Swarm ♠ 23:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am being accused of vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Added later for context: This is regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake news (2nd nomination) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm complaining about an incident I may have created and would like some help. I just nominated Fake news for deletion, because I thought it violates WP:NAD. As a new user, this is my first nomination. I'm now being told that I'm a vandal for doing so and that I should get blocked. I was also told that I need to bring up a lengthy discussion first. I'm mostly being told this by BullRangifer. I'm not necessarily saying this user did anything bad or should be blocked, but if these accusations are false, it seems like PA, especially since this user has doubted my competence as an editor recently based on the fact that I read the Washing Tims, etc. Is this true? Should I have brought it up in the TP first? If so, how can I rescind my nomination? I don't want to get in trouble or appear as a vandal. Please respond swiftly. Thanks, -GDP⇧ 05:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• From what I can see, this is a classic example of new users delving into maintenance areas before they have anything like suffficient knowledge. My advice is to gain some experience by adding content or creating new articles. New Page Reviewers are expected to have in depth knowledge before tagging pages. That unqualified or inexperienced new users are able to tag for deletion is a long standing anomaly. That said, IMO BullRangifer's comment was unnecessarily heavy-handed and is not conducive to helping new users understand our processes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Kudpung, this (newbie?) editor has been refusing advice from many editors and admins. We have repeatedly advised them to avoid problem areas, but they insist. See my comment below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• So, GDP Growth, if you are a new user, how do you know about WP:NAD? That's a pretty obscure and remote item on the wiki-sphere. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• We're way past the "new user still gets treated with kid gloves" stage with this user. They obstinately refuse to heed advice from many editors and admins.

"Vandal"? Starting with a false accusation isn't good. No, you're not a vandal, and stop incessantly repeating the "new user" mantra as an excuse to keep doing what many editors have advised you not to do. Ignoring their advice is disruptive. Follow their advice and stop editing controversial political articles until you get the hang of things here.

If you really think the Fake news article uses unreliable sources, you should have started a discussion (and a thorough/long one at that) on the talk page, not started an AfD. That's an abuse of process that is disruptive.

You really need to learn how to vet sources, because you currently think unreliable sources are reliable (plenty more worse ones than the Washington Times), and RS (like CNN) are unreliable. That's a very fundamental competence problem, as RS are the basis for most editing. If you insist on creating more problems on the American politics articles, against the advice of many editors and admins, then a topic ban (not a "block") might be in order.

The uncanny ability to hit all the right buttons to cause trouble does make one wonder if this is really a newbie. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• GDP Growth, to withdraw your AfD nomination, use the procedure at WP:WDAFD. Since no one has !voted anything but "keep", you can currently still do that. Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the help. I will do that. I joined last month. I guess I'm not tremendously new. I hope you're not suspicious. I have seen similar suspicion directed at another new user. I, as many, have been obsessed a few times with reading many hours worth of policy. Not to be antagonistic to BullRangifer, but I have already rebutted his/her suspicions about me, as well as some similar ones. Honestly, I'm tired of rebutting and do not have the time, so I will not do that here. I discovered WP:NAD in a Google search when I was trying to find out if WP has a policy regarding neologisms. This is because of the use of the term "fake news" in two other articles. But, it would be nice to have a concrete answer. Did I violate anything by nominating that article? -GDP⇧ 06:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Common sense. Length of article, in pages or 193Kb. Currency in the news. 1500+ edits in over 1.5 years by many editors. Thus the mention of competence above. Or wiki-lawyering to bad ends. This looks so bad... Shenme (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• NB: GDP Growth used to be called Intellectual Property Theft. For a new user, he has a remarkable presence at ANI already: [125]. Pinging Slatersteven, Ian.thomson, Objective3000, Drmies. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Note that the AfD has been closed as a SNOW KEEP. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This editor's user page has also been problematic (with an "us and them" attitude) although it seems that after a lot of resistance they eventually improved it (similarly to with their user name). I've been trying to patiently help and I have witnessed some very slow efforts, but per my last comment at User talk:Ian.thomson#ANI I'm mostly ignoring them at this point. There is a failure to assess the reliability of sources and discussion about that appears to be fruitless. Nonetheless, if they are a new editor, progress is likely still possible. I've seen a lot of classical "button pushing" which made me wonder about that. —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to impose at least a DS topic-ban from the AP2 area. Other thoughts? Courcelles (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  What is AP2?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  The post 1932 politics of the United States. Courcelles (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  I see, thank you. I would argue that Fake news is more broad than AP2 since it also describes a lot of other countries. However, I am not aware of a DS area which would fully cover it, so that DS AP2 might be a good start. They just need to be made clear that the topic-ban is not only for edits in the main namespace (where they have very few edits anyway) but in all namespaces.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Courcelles, I'm honestly not sure how to respond to the "button pushing" statements. But, I provided literally zero resistance with changing my username and page (which was suggested that it might be problematic), as extremely evident in my TP. PaleoNeonate obviously knows this. I have recently been WP:BULLY'd several times by other users and attacked for my apparent political beliefs (with nothing to do with WP), including at least one here (I can provide links). As I have entered the realm of controversial articles, there are several users who will/on the verge of saying I'm WP:NOTHERE and several others who will tell you I'm WP:HERE. I have made mistakes on my first active day on WP and was corrected by other users. After that, there were probably a few flaws with what I posted, but no violations I'm aware of. (I'm also concerned with the decision above not to Ping me.) Irondome has agreed to WP:MENTOR me (although he is currently away for a few days), and he has told me I'm WP:HERE. Drmies has also thanked me for this edit. I just don't know how long I can go on rebutting accusations anymore. Please let me know exactly what I violated this time that could get me banned. Thanks, -GDP⇧ 08:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it might be an idea to follow their advice (and I seem to recall what you had said you would do) and just edit pages on classical music for a while. Avoid any controversial topics until you have a much better understanding of etiquette and consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

When I pointed at the user page issues, a lot of time was needed to improve it. When I noticed that you were about to get in trouble because of your user name and explained how to change it, I noticed that you only did much later. I immediately noticed odd wikilawyering and fake consensus forming at InfoWars/Alex Jones (and did hint at that once there). When other editors attempted to explain what reliable sources are, there was only endless arguing. You are now still accusing other editors of bullying and are canvassing. This behavior is what I was referring to when writing about "button pushing". People only have so much patience and few will accept to handhold when their advice is not heard. Adding: a topic ban is not a user ban or a block, and it may be exactly what's needed so you can concentrate on music articles and gain experience. This is another opportunity that you may miss if not being careful. —PaleoNeonate – 10:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, what I said was that I might edit less politics than I originally thought. I was affirmed that I didn't break policy with what I just did. I might leave the realm of politics for a while, but really to avoid WP:BULLY's and false/arbitrary accusations. I've been told that politics is where "even experienced editors fear to tread". I can easily see why. Cheers, -GDP⇧ 09:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure "might" is good enough. Looking at your edit history you seem to have almost exclusively edited controversial political articles (maybe 1 edit a day (perhaps 10% of your output) in non political areas). That (I think) is the issue here, you are very good at saying you will learn (and often do) but there is also a sneaking suspicion that this is just a case of talking the talk but not walking the walk. You do just enough to not get a block, and then push that envelope and so end up here again. Now maybe this time you are right (and this was not vandalism), though your AFD was poorly thought out. Thus I really do think you need to say "I agree to not edit political articles for a period of...until I know more about what I am doing". I also would advise you to stop making it about THEM!, no one is out to get you. But many of us get fed up with going over the same old arguments time and again. We do not get paid for this and spending hours explaining to some one why they are wrong is not how we want to spend our time.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think the AP2 topic ban might be a good idea. It would allow the user to develop and demonstrate competence, and demonstrate that he is here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope you read my paragraph above about WP:HERE. Literally no one has told me what I did wrong... -GDP⇧ 09:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Look, for an user with 381 edit we are spending too much time here. If multiple people told you that smth is wrong with your editing you might want to start listening to them. At this point, you should consider yourself lucky that we are discussing topic ban and not an indefinite block. It is absolutely clear that you do not yet have a right attitude for editing articles on modern politics, nor for discussing constructively at the talk pages. Multiple users tried to give you advise but found that you do not listen. The question is then whether you can ever get this right attitude, or you get an indefinite block first. This is likely your last chance to listen. I would strongly advise you to take this chance.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me everything I did wrong and I will 100% listen right now and NEVER do it again. -GDP⇧ 09:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As one example, in the AfD discussion you started, six different people did point out to you that your nomination was invalid (the subject was not a neologism and the article was nothing like a dictionary definition) and that you had failed to consider WP:BEFORE. You chose not to withdraw the nomination even after the relevant guidelines had been pointed out, and that indicates a lack of competence and/or an unwillingness to listen. That doesn't fall under WP:VAND, if you want to wikilawyer about it, but it's the kind of thing that becomes disruptive. A topic ban sounds like a pretty good idea to prevent that disruption from sensitive parts of the encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• At this point I think the editor is borderline trolling. He repeatedly claims that no one has ever told him what he has done wrong when that is manifestly not the case. Look at his pie chart [126]; it is not one of someone who is here to build an encyclopedia. Also look at his contribs: [127], and his talk page [128]. I say we TBan him from AP2 and then re-assess after six months or so and see if he has demonstrated constructive neutral WP:HERE editing. Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but reviewing this thread, the AFD, and other threads this user has been involved in, I think an admin-imposed AP2 topic ban is appropriate for what appears to be a concerning and persistent pattern of disruptive editing. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I had considered WP:BEFORE, and that same editor said I was fine, but okay. Next time I'll be more careful and rescind if appropriate. I cannot overstate this, but the same editors complaining about me are the same ones that bullied me and others. Other editors have reviewed all my work and said the opposite. Before you place a block, I'd like you to make a consideration. I have a mentor that is currently away from WP, but will be back in a few days. This mentor has extensively reviewed what I've done so far and is still in the process. I'd be happy to message this user and have him state why he thinks I'm WP:HERE and how I have learned from my mistakes (and have not made that many). It may take a few days. That would provide a good defense for me. Please consider. -GDP⇧ 10:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "I had considered WP:BEFORE, and that same editor said I was fine". Who is "that same editor"? "the same editors complaining about me are the same ones that bullied me and others". Who? Name names. And cite, with diffs, how they "bullied [you] and others". "Other editors have reviewed all my work and said the opposite." Who? And where did they say that? No one is currently considering placing a block. A topic ban from modern American politics is what is being considered, so that you can edit on neutral topics and prove your competence. Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

    I assume from the context that "the same editor" is Irondome.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, nowhere has Irondome told the user it was OK to AfD fake news, and Irondome isn't stupid. Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) is "that same user". I will add the others links. -GDP⇧ 10:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

ToBeFree did not say you were fine. Softlavender (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• • • This dif shows an extended conversation where several editors tried to talk to GDP Growth about their conduct on the InfoWars page immediately before this AFD and provides some good context to the frustration other editors have shown with this editor. [129] Simonm223 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"If you want to be taken seriously, choose better sources and have better assumptions (good editors use far more than just CNN). You just listed some unreliable sources which should never appear here, even on a talk page. That you even looked at them is worrying: Daily Caller, Washington Times, Daily Wire, and a bunch of YouTube videos. Even Fox News should be used with caution for political subjects, it's that partisan. Even the RS were cherry picked. I'm not even sure if you actually believe some of those stories, or, if they're true, that it makes any difference. You just threw them at us." This paragraph on Simon's link by BullRangifer. It seems borderline WP:BULLY, and mentioning what news media I prefer caused this whole downhill spiral with this particular user. You can see it easier here. -GDP⇧ 11:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Reading this whole thread might be useful. It includes the first user who has complained about me on this thread. -GDP⇧ 10:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

GDP Growth, you opened this ANI thread making false accusations about others. The editors on the usertalk thread you linked are explaining to you why your AfD was a mistake and disruptive and would likely get you in trouble. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, could someone who is better versed with DS than I am impose a topic ban please before this escalates to a site ban?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

GDP Growth, where has anyone accused you of vandalism in regards to the AfD?

GDP Growth, where has anyone accused you of vandalism in regards to your AfD? Please provide the specific WP:DIFF and the exact words used. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. It was in the discussion of a very recent nomination I proposed for Fake news (the thing that started the thread above). That nomination was briskly deleted by someone. I have not yet figured out how to access the deleted nomination, but perhaps you know how? Here is a subsidiary of that. This also could maybe be another example of WP:BULLYING (accusing me of straw man argument) by the user I mentioned in the above thread that initiated all these complaints. -GDP⇧ 11:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This is what I wrote: "I'm complaining about an incident I may have created and would like some help. I just nominated Fake news for deletion, because I thought it violates WP:NAD. As a new user, this is my first nomination. I'm now being told that I'm a vandal for doing so and that I should get blocked. I was also told that I need to bring up a lengthy discussion first. I'm mostly being told this by BullRangifer. I'm not necessarily saying this user did anything bad or should be blocked, but if these accusations are false, it seems like PA, especially since this user has doubted my competence as an editor recently based on the fact that I read the Washing Tims, etc. Is this true? Should I have brought it up in the TP first? If so, how can I rescind my nomination? I don't want to get in trouble or appear as a vandal. Please respond swiftly. Thanks, -GDP⇧ 05:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)". I would really like to know where the accusation is, if there is one. That was never my intention. I'm really not trying to troll. -GDP⇧ 11:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Give me a bit of time. I will see if I can retrieve the deleted nomination so I can show that I wasn't lying. -GDP⇧ 11:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The nomination is where you created it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake news (2nd nomination)--Ymblanter (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I had just found it. BullRangifer right away said I should be banned and not "competent". That was right after saying on my TP that people who watch Fox, Washington Times, etc., lack competence. Another user linked WP:SKCRIT#2, which suggests vandalism, etc. -GDP⇧ 11:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In other words, no one accused you of vandalism, and this entire ANI thread is baseless. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Which, by the way, reminds me of this subthread you opened on ANI 10 days ago: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Users are impuging my character on this page. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh for fucks sake, all my good faith is gone here. Indeffed because there is either such a CIR problem nothing can solve it in a reasonable amount of time, or we've all fallen for an elaborate troll job. Don't know, don't care to spend more of my limited time trying to decide which, because the solution for either is the exact same. Courcelles (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Francis Schonken still edit-warring to ram in his opposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[130], [131]. See WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#Francis_Schonken, where this was previously reported less than a week ago. Pinging Kudpung, Nikkimaria, and Alex Shih (who is on vacation but what the heck). Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

PS: I would have reported this at ANEW instead of ANI, since this is clearly a long-term edit war on Francis's part, but since it was supposedly resolved and understood 5 days ago at the ANI thread that the opposed merge was a no-go, this merits much stronger sanctions than merely edit-warring would. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone needs a recap: Francis Schonken initiated a merge discussion for the two articles on 25 July; here is the entire thread: [132]. As you see, there were only three total participants in the discussion: Nikkimaria opposed the merge, and Gerda Arendt also opined that it is currently more the norm to keep such articles separate. So there was no consensus at all to merge, and the consensus actually leaned against merging. Nevertheless, on 12 August, Francis performed the contested merge against consensus: [133], and when rightfully reverted by Nikkimaria [134], he edit-warred to ram in his contested and opposed merge: [135]. I reverted his opposed merge when I read the previous ANI report by Nikkimaria [136], and left him edit-warring warnings on his usertalk. Kudpung and Alex Shih agreed that Francis should be blocked if he continued the nonsense. He seemed to back down on the ANI thread on 14 August [137] and that was the end of that ANI thread. But now here he is again five days later, ramming in his opposed merge [138], and edit-warring with Nikkimaria who is rightfully undoing it as lacking WP:CONSENSUS: [139], [140]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: your contributions to the debate have been rather unhelpful. You declared the debate on content "invalid", while all what was needed was to return to that content debate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, the WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY policy has "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request" – and that's exactly what you did, for a proposal that was structurally sound. My merge proposal did not contain a "procedural error", but you spuriously pretended it did, and rejected the proposal for it. Twice an error, and making the debate on content impossible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• No, I don't need to do anything. There was opposition to the merge -- it is contested and there is no WP:CONSENSUS for it; therefore you may not perform it, and you certainly may not edit-war to continue to ram it through. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Re. "... I don't need to do anything" – exactly (nor did I suggest you'd do something), and that's what would have been preferable all along. But you did do something. Unfortunately, what you did was a policy breach, preventing a return to the content debate (which would have been preferable all along). So, indeed, you didn't need to do anything, nor do you need to do anything now, and certainly not prevent returning to the content debate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Disappointing. I currently don't have access to a computer; when I do in an hour or so, I will be taking administrative action if it hasn't been done by someone else by then. Alex Shih (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Francis, it was you who interrupted due process by performing a merge that had repeated stated opposition and no support from anyone but you. You even edit-warred to retain your out-of-process, clearly opposed, non-consensus merge. When you were reported to ANI you stopped edit-warring for 5 days, but then resumed, even continuing after Nikkimaria reverted with her explicit edit summary "rv, please get consensus for this change" [141], [142]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I can only repeat what I posted on the previous ANI: After fully investigating, I endorse Softlavender's assessment of the situation and their action: revert everything and start over with a properly formatted merge proposal. Francis Schonken has a long and troubled history of edit warring and combative behaviour. If it continues for whatever reason, he should note that in future, sanctions are likely come hard and without warning or discussion at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung: the merge proposal was properly formatted. Even if it wasn't (but it was) there was no reason to declare it invalid (per policy, quoted above). The content discussion should never have been aborted by Softlavender. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Francis, it was you who interrupted due process by performing a merge that had repeated stated opposition and no support from anyone but you. You even edit-warred to retain your out-of-process, clearly opposed, non-consensus merge. When you were reported to ANI you stopped edit-warring for 5 days, but then resumed, even continuing after Nikkimaria reverted with her explicit edit summary "rv, please get consensus for this change" [143], [144]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I stand by my assessment that my prior actions were not conducive to a better mutual understanding. I had hoped that my apologising for that would have made others reflect on how conducive to mutual understanding their actions had been. Yours have not been, so, indeed, please do nothing any more. Whatever you tried thus far, it did not help towards a better mutual understanding. And you breached policy in the process. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

      For clarity: the content discussion was entirely valid, and there's no reason not to return to it, for those who want to do so (including myself). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Francis, it is you who have consistently and repeatedly breached policy by performing a merge that had repeated stated opposition and no support from anyone but you. You even edit-warred to retain your out-of-process, clearly opposed, non-consensus merge. When you were reported to ANI you stopped edit-warring for 5 days, but then resumed, even continuing after Nikkimaria reverted with her explicit edit summary "rv, please get consensus for this change" [145], [146]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Can we return now to the content debate? It is at Talk:Was mir behagt, ist nur die muntre Jagd, BWV 208#Merge suggestion. After a week of inactivity I had concluded everything had been said in that debate, and I apologised for making that wrong conclusion. If there's a substantial reason against merge, then surely it will pop up there sooner or later? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• What had been said in that debate clearly revealed that no one supported the merge except you. Nevertheless, you quite deliberately performed the merge against repeated stated opposition [147], and have edit-warred over and over and over to ram it through, even after being warned at ANI, and even after being told repeatedly that you had no consensus for the merge. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. Blocked for six weeks, which seems an appropriate escalation based on Francis Schonken's past block log. Courcelles (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at Help desk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

157.39.226.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted "Therefore I request your team to remove this controversial statement as soon as. Unless we think about some other Constitutional option to remove this by court.i think you must remove this .I am waiting for this" yesterday at the Help Desk, which seems like a legal threat to me. Two users have requested that the IP remove the threat, but no action has been taken so far. TeraTIX 01:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocking probably won't accomplish much. The person who made the legal threat is almost certainly on a different IP address by now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Oop, I blocked before I saw this comment, as much for caste-related nonsense as for the non-credible legal threat. Anyway, I've redacted the legal threat. Swarm ♠ 03:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty annoying stuff, but the IP is registered to Jio. Power-cycling your phone is probably enough to get a new IP address. I've been meaning to email the tech support of several major ISPs to ask them about stuff like this, but I've never gotten around to it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continual addition of unsourced content, and claimed harassment - Crystal Pepsi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User talk:Latinpac1 is repeatedly adding the statement that Crystal Pepsi is being returned to the shelves - as of this moment they're up to 7 additions. User:ARMcgrath has also reverted, and left messages on their talk page - as have I. This would normally come under either content dispute or IDHT, but as per my talk page ARMcgrath states that LatinPac1 has also sent emails to them threatening bans etc. LatinPac1 is clearly (see what I did there) not editing constructively or collaboratively. Even Cluebot's got in on the act now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Admins I’m ARMcgrath or just call me A.R.M. It’s easier. Latinpac1 has sent me two emails telling me that he would get me banned and said that I don’t the page when I already know that I don’t and he accused me of Harassment when you can clearly see it’s the farthest from it. Wikipedia is free but for certain rules and he’s broken several of them already he started as this Special User and then he created his account and did the same thing if you see on the top saying that I’m watching you or something like that you will see that I knew it was that user and he took more action against me. If you want me to upload the screenshots of him sending me those threats, I have no problem doing it. Also as I’m writing this CoconutOctopus is officially involved as well. I’m so shocked that something like his has ever happened to me.A.R.M. (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I indefblocked per WP:NOTTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You cannot reset user's passwords because you are blocked globally

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Keep getting that message when trying to reset password on my desktop. Had no block notice or anything. Please see my talk page. Can still edit on my phone!DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This has been sorted for now, but does raise some issues with how global blocks work, and the poor wording of messages users receive when caught in them. See the help me threads on my talk page if you wold like to learn more. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deliberate flooding of Special:Abuselog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In recent days, I've come across at least two IPs, likely the same person, that appear to be deliberately flooding the filter log. See the filter logs of 71.215.24.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 71.215.206.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); this is a typical edit, seems to be purposely triggering multiple filters with one edit. The IP range calc gives 71.215.206.106/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the range for these IPs, but my browser crashes trying to load the range contributions. Is a rangeblock possible to stop this? Home Lander (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

71.208.8.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now doing the same thing; when combined with the others this generates a range of 71.208.8.48/13 which is too large to handle. Home Lander (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I blocked one, and another started up immediately. So, I range blocked Special:Contributions/71.215.0.0/16 for 31 hours. That won't get the 71.208 IP, of course. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Robertinventor, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would some admin take a look at Robertinventor (talk · contribs) participation at Modern Mars habitability and the recent AFD and consider a WP:CIR/WP:IDHT block?

Context:

• See the Topic ban from Buddhism-related article, and the recently declined appeal.
• Since the topic-ban the user has shifted most of their activity to the life-on-Mars topic area but apparently the problems of POV/OR/SYNTH/CHEESE and exhausting article and talk-space conduct has continued.

To give just one example of WP:CIR/WP:IDHT: when nominated, the Modern Mars habitability was 212 KB long (with 36 sections and 60+ section/sub-section) and almost everyone at AFD has remarked about its bloat and need for WP:TNT. However despite that input, in an attempt to save it from deletion, Robert has expanded the article by another 30kB.

To be clear, I am not claiming that the latest activities alone would merit a block; just presenting them as the latest and continued manifestation of long-term problems. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Closer, whatever you do, please do the same with his alternative account Robert C. Walker (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Building on his prior history that produced and then preserved his Buddhism Tban, and Abecedare's opening comments, I'd like to add an example of why I think this user shows no effort to comprehend and apply core policies. During the AFD he thought all the criticism could be magically erased with a wave of the article rename wand. Its true he did take steps to undo the article rename after being told (mostly at his own talk page) that its poor procedure during an AFD. HOWEVER his responsiveness to a complaint about the form of the process while simply ignoring abundant input on the substance of core policies - after all the input in the prior Tban and failed removal request - shows that these problems are not going away. It is my hope we can prevent disruption of other subject areas, so adding a Mars Tban to the Buddhism Tban would not really help the project in my view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Abecedare: The two events are indeed related, but through actions of another editor, not myself. The article in question was added to Wikipedia in March 2017[148] and when the AfD began, there hadn't been any discussion on its talk page since January 2018. I have been editing here quietly ever since the topic ban, until the appeal. During the topic ban appeal I cited this article as an example of one of my mature articles. In the middle of the t-ban appeal, one of the editors involved in the discussion nominated the article for AfD. This editor, @Ca2james: had no previous edits of either Life on Mars[149] [150] or Modern Mars habitability[151] [152] and presumably found it through the t-ban appeal debate. So the AfD was not a suddenly developing issue in my editing behaviour or the article which had had only minor edits for many months.

Many of the votes to delete the article are by editors who came to it during or after the topic ban appeal debate. They are not topic specialists. Indeed the only section any have named in the AfD is the lede. Though there is a supposed issue of WP:RS the main cites I used, for instance the MEPEG group, the NASA planetary protection officers, the NASA Science goals, etc have not been discussed yet, either in the AfD or the article talk page. Though there is a supposed issue of WP:POV there has been no discussion yet of any particular WP:POV mentioned in the article or the supporting statements for the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

As for whether my edits have improved the article, or whether it should be deleted, that is not a behavioural matter but a matter for the AfD to decide. I have complied with all the requirements of an AfD and my posts publicizing the debate are all neutral and I link to them at the bottom of the debate as required. I have composed posts in the sandbox if they need editing with at most occasional minor edits, so it is not a matter for WP:REDACT. On article renaming then I did it as part of my attempts to improve the article. It has always been about possible Modern Mars habitability as there are no confirmed habitats yet but a lot of interest in the potential. Robert Walker (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As someone with two tban's and 20% of created articles erased I can fully understand how unjust or harsh community decisions or major opinions against one self can feel. I took several months long breaks from Wikipedia (self requested blocks), and then came back refreshed, and today try to be more open about other editor opinions, even if I disagree. Maybe start from a different perspective, take a Wikipedia article you acknowledge as great, and start writing on your blog about your topic at hand, in a similar Wikipedia fashion, on the point, keep it brief, reduce content to the substance, with the best references you can find, and then later maybe you surprise us all with something that is really missing, even if it only amounts to a few words or sentences. prokaryotes (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: Actually, I do that already. Your revert of my Clathrate Gun Hypothesis edits was my first reverted edit to my knowledge in more than a year of editing. The reason is that instead of BRD I do DB. I did that with that article too, posted about my proposed edits to the talk page, waited a few days, and then edited when no-one responded. I will gladly point to some good contributions I've made, there are many more. My edits usually remain in the articles from then on as they are to the point, well written and carefully cited to WP:RS:

• Hawking radiation#1976 Page numerical analysis - 28 July 2018 - added a paragraph about the timescale for evaporation for various sizes of black hole
• Perigean spring tide - 23 July 2018 - added statement about how often they occur to lede.
• Megatsunami#Potential future megatsunamis - 29 June 2018 - Recent research disproves possiblity of future La Palma and Hawaii megatsunamis
• Stellar population#Population III stars - 7 June 2018 - The European Southern Observatory's discovery of a pocket of bright stars in a red shift 7 galaxy.

It was a case of a whole bunch of things in quick succession - that Clathrate revert and debate, then my t-ban appeal then unexpectedly this AfD and now this indef block discussion. It was rather unwise, on refletion, to start my topic ban appeal in the middle of my first edit dispute I think since the topic ban itself. The timing could have been better! But you see these things with hindsight. I appreciate your understanding and sympathy! Robert Walker (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Re Robert's remark that My edits usually remain in the articles from then on as they are to the point, well written and carefully cited to RS. After being here years how can you not know that WP:CONTENTAGE is irrelevant? Also, you've often been warned of WP:WALLOFTEXT. Maybe on low traffic articles people don't engage with you because they conclude the possible benefit on a low traffic article is outweighed by the expected cost, i.e., that they may be facing a WP:FILIBUSTER like the AFD now underway? There's more than one explanation for not being reverted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"My edits usually remain in the articles from then on as they are to the point, well written and carefully cited to RS." Oh, really? I looked at the first bit of evidence Robert lists. It's a section about black hole evaporation. The section is headed "1976 Page numerical analysis." What Robert added includes a citation to another author, in a way that doesn't make it clear whether or not that author is commenting on Don Page's particular 1976 analysis. The footnote includes an entire quote that duplicates what his added paragraph says. Look, either quote the thing, or paraphrase it, but don't do both! Obviously! Well, I guess it's obvious EXCEPT when your self-worth is tied up in word-count. So here we have, as supposed evidence of being "to the point" a contribution that's not obviously to the point of the section, is not terribly well written, and if it's not actually to the point (I can't tell), then obviously not "carefully cited". Dare we move on to his vaunted quality contribution to Perigean spring tide? To get a sense of how Robert botched that one too, start with another editor's corrections, here: [153]. So we're already at two edits out of four not being what Robert claims so confidently for them. That would be enough for me even if I didn't know his history. But I do. This is a guy who (off Wikipedia, at least as far as I know) was so sure of the abundance and ease of extraction of lunar platinum as to assert it could be used as a construction material. At best, Dunning–Kruger effect. At worst, well ... he's clearly intelligent enough to understand our criticisms of his behavior. I can only conclude that he chooses to ignore them, except for whatever groveling apology will get him some clemency so he can move on to the next offense. Yakushima (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or CIR block. Robert has been the biggest liability to Wikipedia in astrobiology and Mars-related articles for many, many years. Unfortunately, past rounds at ANI went nowhere and his attitude was emboldened: He dumped all his Mars assays in a single soapbox page. The current problem is not limited at AfD discussion, is not limited its title, or a misunderstanding, or the length of the introduction, or the absolute lack of encyclopedic tone, but is a reflection of his pervasive POV and synthesis of bias, and his using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his blog and beliefs. As noted, his blog and the article Modern Mars habitability are almos mirror images. When challenged, and with polite shamelessness, he wrote that we are "confused" on what his work actually means and wants to teach us science terminology. As other editor remarked: he uses publications that do not appear to have the related content. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and I strongly suspect Robert's only interest in this subject is to mimic his blog content in Wikipedia to give himself some credibility. The poor content is a reflection of his chronic cowboy attitude and his inability to understand/comply to the most basic requirements of verifiability and neutrality. When you have to impose two or more topic bans on an editor, it shows the problem is not the topic, but the editor. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Some topics he disrupts significantly: environment/climate change ([154]), habitability of Mars ([155], [[156]), Planetary protection ([157]), Interplanetary contamination ([158]), Mars sample-return mission ([159], [160]), Water on Mars ([161], [162]). - Rowan Forest (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment unless someone volunteers to work as a mentor, a CIR block seems inevitable. That isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a mess. It's also a serious NPOV issue; any evidence (no matter how flimsy) that there might be life on Mars is expounded on at great length, while evidence that there isn't life on Mars is largely ignored. As there is no proof of life on Mars, that's not acceptable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: I got involved in this as a part of reviewing the recent "unblock from Buddhism space articles appeal" by Robert Walker, which was declined. Before my vote there, I was hoping to find evidence that Robert Walker contributions outside of the Buddhism space has been solid and respectful of our core content guidelines such as no original research, no synthesis, NPOV and the proper use of peer-reviewed scholarly sources and equivalent RS. To my disappointment, the evidence suggested the opposite and gave me reasons to oppose the appeal. RW has been disruptive in the Mars-related articles for quite a while, just like he was in the Buddhism-related articles. Please see more comments, diffs and details here. I support expanding his topic ban to include Mars and Astrobiology, or similar. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Regretfully support topic ban or block (even an indef CIR block). Power~enwiki, I just recently [163] tried to help Robertinventor understand that his approach to sourcing and writing on Wikipedia was problematic, but to no avail. I tried to help him at least one,two,three times, and I'm not the only one who's tried to help: 2014,2016, and 2016 again He appears to have a fixed way of seeing how things work on Wikipedia and is unwilling or unable to see that his sourcing and Talk page approaches do not align with community consensus. And there's the wall of text FORUM posts that don't address other editor's concerns with lots of headings and bold and italic text stuck every which way.
  All of this has been going on for years in several topic areas. He had problems in the Mars topic area, which culminated in a declined RFAR. After that he turned to the Buddhism topic area, for which he was taken to ANI multiple times: 2015,2015 again,2016,2017, and 2017 again and ultimately received a topic ban. After the Buddhism topic ban, he returned to the Mars area, creating the article currently at AfD and others. He also pushed the Moregellons Lyme hypothesis, another fringe theory (see Talk:Moregellons Lyme hypothesis for how that went; there were problems with FRINGE and MEDRS).
  Based on the Morgellons and Buddhism issues, I do think that if he's topic banned from Mars, he would behave the same way in other topic areas. Robert clearly has lots to contribute but if he can't or won't do it according to Wikipedia principles, I'm thinking that Wikipedia is not the place for him. Sadly, I think an indef CIR block is on the horizon even if it doesn't happen this time. Ca2james (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I was about to suggest a siteban when I wrote this. I don't doubt the good intentions of Robert, but the problems keep being repeated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block on WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE grounds. User was given plenty of advice and numerous opportunities to improve his contributions in a collaborative spirit, and has repeatedly failed to follow even the simplest advice. His constant WP:BLUDGEONING of any discussions he is involved with has worn out the most patient editors. — JFG ^talk 11:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Supplemental In addition to my reasons for "support" above, Robert has been using Wikipedia for profit. His first article (2008) is to promote his non-notable software Tune Smithy. We may want to verify that none of his kindle books for sale at Amazon are Wikipedia material. In the blurbs where he talks about the Mars material he does mention writing some or all of the material for Wikipedia. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Large parts of Modern Mars habitability appear in Touch Mars? Europa? Enceladus?, available free online[164] or for $5.14 from Amazon,[165] described in both cases as "Copyright © 2017 by Robert Walker (UK). All rights reserved". For a random example, search for "Because of this eutonic mixture effect" to see both identical text and light paraphrasing while retaining the overall POV argument and its structure. 92.19.27.191 (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Removed comment as permitted under WP:REDACT - too long on seeing it on the page, will repost after more drafting of it). Robert Walker (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well whaddya know, learn something new everyday. After 7 years and about 16000 edits I never knew I could republish articles for profit and I'm not a sufficient lawyer to think through the possible ways that technical legality intersects with WP:COI. Technical legality doesn't really change anything when one gets right down to the spirit of collaboration to build an encylopedia NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support CIR siteban. He's just not right for Wikipedia. He is better off on his own, writing his own material, on his own websites or wikis, or publishing his own articles somewhere. He has over and over demonstrated a lack of competence in editing, sourcing, collaborating, and communicating on Wikipedia, and in listening to, hearing, or understanding others. While his own personal knowledge (opinions, insights) and enthusiasm may be welcome elsewhere, they are insufficient in the rigorous atmosphere of Wikipedia, where collaboration, sourcing, and following policies and guidelines take precedence and where he has demonstrated an inability to cope without creating large and repeated disruptions. And especially per Rowan Forest's and NewsAndEventsGuy's revelations, this editor needs to be shown the door. Softlavender (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  While I know what you mean, Softlavender, I can't help chuckling at the concept of the rigorous atmosphere of Wikipedia. We try, of course. EEng 05:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I have a long convoluted history with the subject. I first tried to help him when he asked me for advice about disputes about Mars articles. Unfortunately, he is his own worst enemy by going on and on in walls of text. He also wanted advice on Buddhism, a topic about which I have very little knowledge, but I then realized that he had a (commonly held) wrong argument that the "stable" version of an article that had been unchanged for months should be preferred over a bold attempt to improve the article. In any case, I eventually found him impossible to deal with due to his verbosity. However, I hadn't seen until now that he is apparently using Wikipedia for promotion, and apparently copying his own copyrighted materials into Wikipedia. Those aren't judgment calls. They are clearly outside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Site-Ban unless he can show that he hasn't been involved in copyvio and promotion. (If he can show that he hasn't done those, limited sanctions are still in order for being tedious.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I support CIR ban, COPYVIO does not seem to be an issue. The material I know about was written here and republished over there. Robert's redacted comment (which I read from archives) taught me that - surprise! - this is permitted by Wikipedia licensing rules. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but according to WP:REUSE, it seems that Wikipedia content can be reused but must be attributed to the editors who contributed to the article. In the changelog on the free book, there's no indication that the content was reused from Wikipedia but it will take some time to determine whether the content was first created for the book or Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Site-Ban See my comment above on his own self-aggrandizing (and largely fictitious) claims for the quality of his briefer "contributions" in other areas. It's not just a few topics, folks. This is a guy makes stuff up behind a smokescreen of citations, quotes and (of course) verbosity. Who cares why he does it? Is the logorrhea intentional? Involuntary? Either way, he's just slowing things down. I stopped contributing much to Wikipedia in part because of people who are either unable or unwilling to get a clue about what we're doing here. Robert is clearly one of these people. I've been problematic myself at times. (See my talk page.) But this consistently? For this long? No. Because, whatever my occasional differences, I have the capacity and willingness to respect the process. Robert? Lacking one, or the other, or both. Ban him from the site. Yakushima (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (CC by SA) Firstly, I intend to take a wiki break very shortly, but there are some recent comments I feel I need to respond to.

• I wrote 'Tune Smithy' for Wikipedia in 2008 when I was a brand new Wikieditor. It was my first article and I disclose my my connection as author of Tune Smithy on my talk page. It was my fourth ever edit in wikipedia and my software had just had a good review in Sound on Sound magazine which you can buy in any general newsagent here - in the UK anyway it is aboout the top magazine for musician's gear. It was not promo. I knew almost nothing of wikipedia policies and I thought it was notable enough for an article.
• The section on eutonic mixtures in Touch Mars? is new and written by me. Yes I wrote it for Modern Mars habitability which is released under CC by SA. However, since CC licenses are non exclusive, I can release my own work under both licenses.
• The near clone of Modern Mars habitability is Places on Mars to Look for Microbes, Lichens, ..., which is released under CC by SA and attributes Wikipedia. This license permits commercial use so long as it is attributed. Incidentally the whole thing is also available online for free and readers can save it to Pocket or export to pdf or save it off line as "web page full" with images. The number who buy it on kindle is very small. It is not a commercial enterprise; it is a service used by a few readers per year.
  • The only material written by other editors come from amongst the 1341 words in this section of Water on Mars#Possibility of Mars having enough water to support life - (13:35, 25 May 2013). All that is left of this in Places on Mars to Look for Microbes, Lichens, ... amounts to around three sentences[166]. Robert Walker (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (WP:POV and WP:RS) I'd like to make a couple of points as they relate to intent. With Modern Mars habitability, the intent was to express the WP:POV of NASA [167], ESA (European Space Agency)[168] and DLR (German Aerospace, Berlin)[169] as the main view in the article.

WP:RS is for WP:RSN rather than WP:ANI. I'm not sure how it is relevant here except as a question of good faith, and talk page technique. On that matter I assure you I am acting in good faith with the sources used in Modern Mars habitability.

• Comment (knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies) Please bear in mind, although I have been on Wikipedia a fair bit over the last few days because of this emergency (and have been also during similar events in the past), I am not normally here much except to read. Normally I do edits on a few occasions per week, and most are minor. (For recent examples of me collaborating with other editors here: [170], and [171].) On a couple of other points raised, bear in mind, I am not permitted to comment here or anywhere else on wikipedia on past events relating to an active topic ban.
• Comment (Wikibreak) As I mentioned, it is my intent to take an extended wikibreak, as Prokaryotes suggested. For at least a few months. I have removed all the pages from my watch list. If I am left unblocked, I will restrict my edits of Wikipedia to wikignoming activities such as fixing broken urls (I notice those often). My wish throughout has always been to benefit Wikipedia and its readers.

I'll be working on talk page technique, encyclopedic tone, and WP:NPOV on other wikis where I am an editor in good standing. And I think it would be best for me not to comment further here, unless someone specifically requests a response. Robert Walker (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Opposed to wikibreak You're brilliant, creative, diverse, and can write. However, a wikibreak could only gift you with the power of concise teamwork through use of a golden lamp and benevolent geni. Stranger things have happened here, but this seems like a forlorn hope to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy. The user has been given ample and repeated time and opportunities to improve, but has failed to. The fact that his disruption has now been revealed to have extended over many many years and many scientific subjects only makes it more important that he be shown the door. The community has wasted too much time on him. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction. Courcelles (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PS I am adding this PS with the closing admin's approval. This is only relevant in the event Robert later seeks unblock. Following his ban he posted a long column at Quora titled "Blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, but saved from a site ban". If it disappears before an unblock request is filed, interested eds are invited to ping me, in case I still have an offline copy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, more at science20.com describing his (presumably legal) forking efforts. -- GreenC 19:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Help with deletions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Off-Wikipedia, the recently retired Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) asked the following of me: "Would you be so kind as to delete my user page and subpages at EN-Wiki? Forgot to do that." I received an error message when I tried to start this process; would someone a little more familiar with the deletion tools be able to take this on? Many thanks. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn: Before I do this, are you absolutely sure it was Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) who requested the deletions of their user space pages? KnightLago (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@KnightLago: Yes; no doubt at all. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn: The only thing remaining is the global user page at meta. If they have that deleted everything should be gone. KnightLago (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Liamnotneeson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With this edit, Liamnotneeson has added an inescapably large Black Sun (occult symbol) to his userpage. This is a neo-Nazi symbol with very few other common modern meanings, and it's very clear from his behavior that he knows this.

Since returning after a year of inactivity, this editor has aggressively pushed to downplay the white nationalism of the Identitarian movement (starting here and continuing in article and on talk), has argued against calling the Unite the Right rally "white nationalist", has (correctly) shifted a link at American Nazi Party from white nationalism#white power to white pride, and has posted to Talk:Jews to say that "Jewish people seem to be more socially progressive" but that "there is debate on whether modern progressivism is achieving human progress to begin with."

I was willing to assume good faith for these edits until he adding a close cousin to the swastika to his user page. This editor is familiar with the Unite the Right rally, and this specific version of the symbol was prominently used by neo-Nazis at that event.[172] The use of Nazi symbolism is inherently disruptive, and will drive away both new and old editors. These childish games show that this editor is no longer here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Inescapable is a bit a stretch. Easily missable on my computer. Also where I come from, the black sun does not mean neo-Nazism Liamnotneeson (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I ensure that the edits are in good faith. Right-wing politics is the main topic I browse and know enough about to make edits on. I'm not very familiar with the Unite the Right rally, either. Liamnotneeson (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The first talk discussion on the identitarian talk page was my first time on Wikipedia in a year and my first time on any talk page, and I definitely was then and am still learning how Wikipedia works, and how to put my own opinions aside. The article on the Jews was based on a misunderstanding of the context of the phrase and I resigned my suggestion after getting a response. I would like to know what you imply by mentioning that, anyways. I don't know how you could get arguing the removal of white nationalism from the edit on the Unite the Right talk, either. I was not supporting nor arguing against his claim.

I am not a neo-Nazi, unlike how you seemingly imply. I despite Nazism and Hitler as much as the next man. I am not on this site to push a message, and am sorry for coming across as if I was. Liamnotneeson (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As a Jewish person I deplore Nazism, but if people are alliwed to display communist ideology on their user and talk pages, then why can't others display the equally deplorable Nazi ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9511:3721:19F6:D1F:EF7:BDF8 (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• The black sun appears to have been removed. If its restored, I'd suggest bring the page to MFD on the grounds of WP:POLEMIC. As for the above commenter: Communist symbols should not be on talk pages either. 08:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Beyond My Ken (talk)

• Agree with Beyond My Ken that MFD is a better venue for this dispute than AN/I. That said, if you want to get rid of communist symbols on all user pages, you have your work cut out for you. FenceSitter (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not really, deletion of the user box would do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• If it was "easily missable" Liamnotneeson wouldn't have put it there in the first place. Prior to editing far-right articles, Liamnotneeson started by editing Prospect Ridge Academy, which is in COlorado, the same location the IP is from. In Colorado the black sun is a neo-Nazi symbol. Logging off to try and derail the conversation with false equivalence nonsense doesn't fill me with confidence. Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Logging off to try and derail the conversation with false equivalence nonsense doesn't fill me with confidence. What are you talking about? And I meant "where" as in a location on the internet, not as in a physical place, but thanks for trying to out me. Liamnotneeson (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Grayfell, if you have suspicions of someone logging off to sock, report it at SPI or chime in privately with a checkuser for running a quick check. Leaving that, your outing attempts may end up getting you blocked (or the IP, depending upon the depth of discretion you show from hereon). Thanks, Lourdes 12:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• You should probably remove the userbox saying you live in Denver then. Curdle (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• What a good idea! I'll do that DistractedOften (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• To review: This person added neo-Nazi imagery to his own user page. He did not do this as a userbox, instead as a larger image. There is no userbox to delete in this situation. (There have been multiple previous discussion about deleting political userboxes as a class, but they don't seem to go anywhere). The image was floated so that it always appears on his user page in the same place, making it distracting and unavoidable. This user made multiple edits about American places and American far-right politics. This user has claimed that the black sun symbol wasn't a neo-Nazi symbol where he is from. This person previously added userboxes saying he is from the Denver and the United States. A Denver IP address pops in to announce their own Jewish heritage and imply that communism is just as bad as neo-Nazism. I hope everyone realizes that even if we accepted this as a coincidence and believed what this person says, this is still completely irrelevant to this discussion. One doesn't have to be Jewish to know that a movement which advocates genocide should not be tolerated. I don't care about blocking the IP for socking, I care about preventing neo-Nazi advocacy and memes from slipping through the cracks. A userpage containing neo-Nazi self-promotion is very far from Wikipedia's mission. I thought that was obvious. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Advocating genocide, or acts of violence, is not tolerated on user pages per WP:USER, but, ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence, but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.). This is assuming that the black sun symbol, which has in any case now been deleted, even counts as a statement of support for Nazism in particular. FenceSitter (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis are "controversial"? No, Wikipedia does draw lines when necessary, and using Wikipedia as if it were MySpace to share neo-Nazi propaganda crosses the line. If you want to make the case that it's possible to advocate neo-Nazism without advocating genocide, you've got your work cut out for you. We would absolutely not permit anyone to add File:National Socialist swastika.svg as a decoration to their userpage. Nobody should be fooled by this childish replacement, especially when evaluating the editor's obvious prior familiarity and behavior. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, we let users have symbols on their pages identifying themselves as fascist, neo-fascist, Italian fascist, Francoist, Falangist, "non-Nazi National Socialist" and even Iron Guard (very nasty history IMO). I can see a case for deleting all such political statements and symbols from user pages, but MFD is the place to have that discussion. In the mean time, the statement on WP:USER seems to be the closest we have to policy on the issue. If you want to "draw lines", you need to get consensus on them first. FenceSitter (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we allow users to identify as explicitly Nazi, though? We allow them to go "ok, we don't think the Holocaust was a good thing, but other than that, we happen to like (specific non-genocide-y ideas)," sure. But can you find any userboxes that allow a user to say "yep, the Jews deserved it"...? Because that's what separates Nazism from those other ideologies you list (as well as various Communist ideologies). Identifying as a Nazi is no different than explicitly advocating the destruction of anyone who would risked going to the camps. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, there was a long debate about this (in the appropriate place), which I suppose we could rehash if we want. It wasn't resolved, instead the userbox got speedy deleted because no-one was using it and to avoid the further divisiveness of the debate. In any case I don't think the black sun symbol, which according to the article is more ambiguous, is equivalent to "yep, the Jews deserved it". It might very well mean "ok, we don't think the Holocaust was a good thing, but other than that, we happen to like (specific non-genocide-y ideas)" or maybe just weird German esotericism. AND, in any case, the symbol has actually been removed from the page. FenceSitter (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – I should like to note that Liamnotneeson is now User:DistractedOften and should update their signature.

--Auric talk 22:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment If all this editor is doing is identifying as a neo-Nazi on his user page using a swastika variant then I think that should be permitted. After all, neo-Nazis are allowed to edit Wikipedia and I suppose we can't really prevent them. I can appreciate why people would find it offensive but I don't think Wikipedia should get into the business of stopping offence. Personally I don't think it's a bad idea for white supremacists and neo-Nazis to identify themselves because we can at least then keep an eye on their edits. Banning neo-nazis from displaying a swastika does create a perception problem in that Wikipedia looks the other way when it comes to dangerous left-wing ideologies but comes down hard on the far-right. Provided the Nazis just self-identify and don't start explicitly advocating human rights atrocities then it's not a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with this entirely. FenceSitter (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• • I do think we are inconsistent about this and the more that happens the more legitimacy the white nationalist narrative gets. But I think the edit summary "B l a c k s u n r i s i n g" makes this one an easy call, fortunately, so we don't have to spend too much time worrying about the justification or the slippery slope - agree with TonyBallioni, this is pretty clear CIR stuff. [173] Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• I’ve indefinitely blocked: crossed with the above post, but I’ll explain it here: anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, but they are not allowed to edit disruptively. Promoting an ideology that is genocidal by its very nature and that thinks other human being shouldn’t exist is incompatible with the English Wikipedia and the goals of the Wikimedia movement. This editor knew what they were doing. They clearly posted this on their user page knowing it would provoke a response, and then decided to play dumb at this ANI about it when they were called out on their hate speech: which is what displaying any Nazi iconography prominently on one’s userpage is.
  That behavior is inherently disruptive and incompatible with the values of our project and movement. Once you move from advocating for a controversial view under the guise of NPOV to actively displaying iconography from Nazis you’ve crossed the line where blocking is needed to prevent future disruption to the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tony, and would likely have made the same action. Some viewpoints just cannot be welcome here, they are very, very rare, but neo-Nazism is one of them. One does not need to go further than display the icons of that viewpoint to communicate they are mired in racial hatred, at a very, very minimum. Good block. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Also agree with the block. Only held back because we have users actually defending the user in question.
      Also, I've since noticed that Liamnotneeson's most vocal advocate happens to be a WP:PRECOCIOUS self-admitted WP:SPA who has been carrying out similar edits to Identitarian movement related articles. Huh. I suppose that should be a new thread, but I've got to turn in. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

      Just to clarify, Ian is referring to FenceSitter (I hope!). Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

      • • Yep. I sadly disagree with you on this point, but I know full well that you're here in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

          It's not a big deal Ian. I am not going to lose sleep over some Nazi not being able to display a Swastika. My point is more of a general one in that I think it's a slippery slope to determine which symbols editors can and cannot display so me personally, I would just not do it, but I fully understand why other editors think it crosses the line. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

          It would be helpful if there were clear policy on which symbols may be displayed, rather than being decided ad hoc by admins. FenceSitter (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

          No. Then we’d miss something and couldn’t block. If someone doesn’t understand why displaying a Nazi symbol on their userpage in this fashion is disruptive, they aren’t competent enough to be editing anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

          "Displaying symbols associated with Nazism is considered disruption", for example, might be clearer than "acts of violence does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes" etc. Apparently this isn't obvious to everyone, and it might have prevented this incident. FenceSitter (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"It's a slippery slope to determine which symbols editors can and cannot display." I concur. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support block - The editor removed Black Sun after negative comments about it, changed their username, created a new user page, and then added Black Sun again. They knew exactly what they were doing. I'll also note that in their userbox list, they identify as as "identitarian", another of the myriad far-right/alt-right/white supremacist/white nationalist/neo-Nazi/neo-Fascist groups that society is currently being plagued with -- as is Wikipedia. They're all slightly different but, at the bottom, they're all the same, and we don;t need any of them. If people with those views want to edit quietly and productively, that's just fine as long as their beliefs don't creep into their edits, but there's no place here for those who want to attract attention to those foul ideologies. We don't allow pedophiles, and we don't allow terrorist propaganda. I'm fine with banning Communist agit-prop as well, include symbology, if there's a real need to. We have a tool to stop this crap, WP:POLEMIC, and it should be used more often.
  My compliments to Tony B. for a righteous block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• "created a new user page, and then added Black Sun again" - I don't think this part is correct. The user page was actually moved, so the edit history moved with it. The editor did not add the Black Sun again. FenceSitter (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are correct. Above comment edited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• The first bullet point of WP:POLEMIC is too vague to be of any use, and the latter two points do not apply. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics#Political ideologies all arguably violate POLEMIC. It should be applied consistently or not at all and the wording should be clarified. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose block in case that wasn't clear. I appreciate Beyond My Ken's point that there is a WP:POLEMIC case for removing and banning all political identifications, or all "extreme" political identifications, on user pages, but there needs to be consensus about this as policy, rather than admins indefinitely blocking users ad hoc. (And given the ambiguity of the black sun symbol, it's not clear to me that it necessarily amounted to an identification with Nazism.) FenceSitter (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:POLEMIC is already policy, and is quite clearly applicable. I agree with TonyBallioni that enumerating a specific list leaves far too much room for gaming the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). might justify removing the image, at MFD as you suggested, but not indefinitely blocking the editor especially when he removed the image himself. FenceSitter (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose block for the reason given, i.e. "disruptively displaying Nazi symbolism on userpage." Wikipedia:Child protection aside, no editor should be blocked for identifying a certain way or displaying a partisan symbol (however vile their perceived identification may be). If their editing of articles and talk pages rises to a blockable level, then block them for that. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support block. To put it very mildly, I don't think allowing people to endorse or encourage an ideology that calls for the subjugation or murder of a significant portion of our editorial population is conducive to a collaborative editing environment. I strongly agree with TonyBallioni on Promoting an ideology that is genocidal by its very nature and that thinks other human being shouldn’t exist is incompatible with the English Wikipedia and the goals of the Wikimedia movement. Do we really need a policy on this? Apparently, from how often people dispute these blocks, yes?.... Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support block Wikipedia must not be used as a platform for genocide advocacy. Simonm223 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Says a person with Marxist userboxes on his userpage. We currently have an on-going genocide trial for Marxists who were educated in French universities and then used those teachings to commit a genocide in Cambodia. Hypocrite. --Pudeo (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Any intellectually honest review of Marx's ideas and what Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did and even said will readily show glaring disagreement between them. Even then, Nazism's stated goal was genocide (ultimately of everyone who wasn't a Nazi), Marx's stated goals did not include genocide. Don't excuse Nazis further by downplaying their stated goals'. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact revolutionary violence is already prescribed in the 1848 Communist ManifestO: "their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". So yes, anyone with a Marxist userbox is advocating political violence and murder. --Pudeo (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

While we'd call it an WP:OR interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source here, in Biblical studies, that would be called Eisegesis. Stop excusing Nazis. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment FYI: The Black Sun isn't a banned symbol in Germany according to the Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, although it covers a wide variety of Nazi-related symbols, even simple runes. --Pudeo (talk) 9:37 am, Today (UTC−4)
• indef + ban Obviously abusing the openness of Wikipedia to advocate for an ideology, and an odious one at that via the Black Sun. That is not what editing privileges are for. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support block We shouldn't police thoughts, but editors should strife to leave their ideologies at the door. - Donald Albury 15:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Indef for FenceSitter

Following on User:Ian.thomson's comment above, User:FenceSitter's behavior is the same as Liamnotneeson, just without the symbol on their userpage. Editing privileges are given freely in the good faith that people will use them to build an encyclopedia. They are not given so people can come here solely to advocate in favor of some ideology; good faith is not a suicide pact. This user's entire history of contribs = WP:PROMO violation. Declaring that one is a SPA doesn't make it somehow "better", and advocating one POV is not improving Wikipedia.Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced NFPA 704 and Chembox Hazards

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone who geolocates to Kurgan, Kurgan Oblast, Russia is editing often obscure chemicals. The anon is adding numerous unsourced {{Chembox Hazards}} content that usually conflict with sources - when I can find the sources. I think I have seen one edit that added correct information. The warnings and hazards are overdone - likely wp:OR.
The anon was outraged that the health code on the NPFA 704 for ethanol was 2 whilst for methanol is a 1. - even though that's what the sources state.
All are mobile edits. Not sure where to post an ANI notice to. The anon does seem to return to some IPs after editing at others.

• 5.164.42.24 (talk) - needs checking
• 176.96.82.225 (talk)
• 37.113.64.191 (talk)
• 176.214.102.112 (talk)
• 37.113.65.54 (talk) - this IP was blocked. Some eloquent edit summaries and talk page PAs here re methanol
• 176.214.100.137 (talk)
• 5.164.38.149 (talk) - Here the anon changed the GHS pictogram to a value in conflict with the ref on the chembox. The 704 was increased from a reference that I added after my revert. Also added an MPFA 704 to barium bromide that I could not find a source for.
• 37.113.68.37 (talk)

There are probably more IP addresses that I haven't seen. It is quite difficult to track down all the IPs being used. Is there a way to search for this sort of edit?
Should a range block be added? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've encountered this individual before. Everything I have checked has contradicted reliable sources, so at this point everything should be reverted unless accompanied by a reliable source that confirms the information. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Any suggestions on dealing with this? The anon's edits are difficult to detect. Jim1138 (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Because the IP addresses are so variable, I don't think blocks will help much. I'm not sure there is much to do beyond reverting when you encounter it. You've made a report here and notified WikiProject Chemistry, so that should make others aware so they can help out when they encounter it too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit filter will help, but it hardly seems worthwhile for one issue. It would have collateral damage too. A consensus to revert, and then reverting will probably do. I have wasted time trying to confirm some of these values, and in one case it was possible, but mostly not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• 5.164.42.24/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - blocked 1 month
• 176.214.102.112/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - blocked 1 month
• 37.113.64.191/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - blocked 1 month
• 176.96.82.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - no identifiable range yet, but regularly used - blocked 1 month by Ed --Swarm ♠ 00:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Will look around to see if there are any other ips/ranges being used by this person. Swarm ♠ 01:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• It looks like this is all we can do in terms of rangeblocking for now. All of the above rangeblocks do not appear to have any collateral. Let us know if more IPs pop up. Swarm ♠ 01:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Racist vandalism from Verizon range

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b020:1621:cd43:4345:b53a:9b5c/44. For at least the past week, there has been frequent racist vandalism from this range, particularly at Indian people and Dunkin' Donuts. Some IPs are currently blocked, but they come back to Verizon, so I'm guessing this is someone with a cell phone, and virtually unlimited IPs. Is a rangeblock possible to stop this? Home Lander (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a /39 (Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b000:0:0:0:0:0/39). Smaller range blocks won't accomplish much. It looks like the articles are semi-protected now, so maybe we should see what happens. If it spreads, I can do a range block. The collateral damage looks worse than it actually is. There are a couple block-evading IP socks who edit from this range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What on earth is going on on this page? Userpage occupying most of ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There appears to be most, if not all, of Hijiri88's userpage on this page. I can't see how or why. DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That was my fault. I put a : where a | should have gone. I... put it back the way it should be. Sorry. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

[174] Swarm ♠ 17:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Stupid computers. EEng 17:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Better than the alternative. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This is now the second biggest formatting oopsie I've made in my life on a website; the biggest still being the time I accidentally overwrote the CSS for Arthritis Society of Canada, turning the whole page royal purple. Happily it was much easier to fix. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Malfunctioning Archive bot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wrong venue.

Hello, It appears my talk page archive bot no longer works. There are month long entries that are not being archived. Anything wrong with it? Heres the code: {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} {{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(30d) | archive = User talk:AmericanAir88/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 2 | maxarchivesize = 75K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 2 | minthreadsleft = 5 }} Thank you AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• This should probably go to User talk:ClueBot Commons, actually. But VPT will take care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTFORUM at George Bell (bishop)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In my view this talk posting is inappropriate, as I explained here. I removed it, and it has been restored. The justification for restoring it is here.

This just opens up an ugly cans of worms, on a whole bunch of levels - has nothing to do with improving the page based on RS and is really just arguing with a banned user in a place where they cannot respond. It is not what talk pages are for.

Please remove and trout. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As I explained, the post is dealing with published points on the article content. The article discusses the Carlile report and the legal standard. Per WP:TALK this is valid use of an article talk page. The claim 'can of worms' and of arguing with a banned user is inarticulate parade of horribles and assumption of bad faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed it, as I agree with Jytdog. --Tarage (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

And what part of WP:TALKNO are you relying on for your bad faith? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The part about arguing with a banned user that can't respond. --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you are just relying on your bad faith. Not on WP:TALKNO or WP:TPO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to edit war it then if you feel so strongly about it. Two editors have told you otherwise. --Tarage (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Told me? You have no basis in WP:Talk for what you have done, we don't rely on your ipsa dixit. And your 'I'm an editor, I say so' is just ridiculous diversion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Alan, I don't get it. Are you proposing any changes to the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts are edits to the legal standard(s) discussed/recommended in the Carlile report, which is an issue of civil vs. criminal - it requires background understanding of the opinions on which standard should be and were applied, and of course how much to go into it. The article [175] currently highlights the Carlile criminal standard without discussing the Carlile recommendation for the civil standard. Also, the fact of police investigation and opinion, which was co-commitment with settlement is now not discussed (it has been removed), at all (except that there was a referral), and perhaps that is right but the talk page is for exploring that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the article being proposed as a ref? The thread isn't about improving the article, should be redacted so it is focussed on the article and specific proposal to include it as a ref. As editors, we can get our background understanding from outside wikipedia, as with any article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The ref is being used as outside background understanding for Wikipedia editors, that's how the thread uses it, so as you say it uses it the way Wikipedia editors use it in improving articles - as for it being a ref in the article, not without discussion, See WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:BIASED and Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not news, it's opinion. And as long as you're throwing links around, how about WP:DAILYMAIL, actually -- or had you forgotten that? --Calton | Talk 11:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not say it was news, so what are you talking about, the links I linked to are about opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, surely the only valid way to talk about this article is if we want to include it as a ref. Calton, the article was published in the Spectator! Was also published in the Mail on Sunday which is surely excluded from WP:DAILYMAIL (e.g., all Daily mail links are gone from the article author's page, the Mail on Sunday links remain) but if we were to use this article as a ref (perhaps on Criticism of Wikipedia but not the Bell article, IMO) we would surely use the Spectator url, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely there is not one way to talk about a published article. The ref deals with the subject of the George Bell investigation. If you want to talk about Wikipedia criticism, which I have not referred to anywhere, let alone on the George Bell talk page, then that is another matter but it's not, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Your post was very clearly all about arguing with Hitchens. You quote his piece, and argue with the quoted bits. As I noted at your talk page, his blog has a comment section where you can argue with him to your heart's content. I understand the impulse -- I drafted a comment on his post in his Mail column about his banning, and then closed the tab instead of saving it, with the Philip Cross mess very much in mind.

Hitchens is banned and there is no good in arguing with him here; folks can argue with him there if they like, but then they should stay away from anything related to him here per the Cross case; what he writes are opinion pieces so they are of minimal value in any given article as sources. So there is really not much good for WP or for any individual editor in engaging with him or his pieces. In my view. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No. My post was directly addressing facts and opinions in the George Bell matter, I only discussed parts on the George Bell matter. Whether you like the source or not is irrelevant, we discuss matters even in sources we don't like. My interest in my post is only discussing facts, propositions, and opinions in the George Bell matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What changes are you proposing? I can't see any. You are giving your opinions about the article but Bell's talk page isn't the place for that. You could use your personal space or talk directly to him via Mail on Sunday. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I already answered this above - discussions on talk pages are for raising issues on coverage of facts, propositions and opinions, and that's what I was doing. If you have a question or a comment or a critique about the facts, propositions and opinions discussed then discuss it on the talk page. That is article development process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As a general comment even with BLPTALK concerns, discussing how a topic is being covered in sources that are not appropriate for WP (like Daily Mail now), but are popular enough that will possibly create a stir that will end up affecting the coverage of the topic seems perfectly in line with talk page guidelines. In a case like Bell, where there is seemingly a lot of misinformation or questions being tosses around across all sources (RS and non-RS), having awareness of what those are and how that could impact the article. In the case of the Hitchings opinion piece, if it is/has been published in the Daily Mail, there will be people coming to WP to try to "correct" the affected articles, so I see no issue with Alanscotttwalker focusing on points that will likely be targets of these new editors to pre-emptively shut them down. Preventing vandalism of this type is improving the article, so is 100% fair talk page use. --Masem (t) 15:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hitchens hasn't asked people to vandalise the article and there are plenty of eyes on it already. People can get their awareness of Bell from Google. Alanscottwalker, I am sure we could have an interesting discussion as I disagree with your opinions but Bell's talk page is not a forum. I don't know how I would respond to you in an appropriate way on the talk page, appropriate meaning focussing on the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential draw of new editors to a WP article does not necessarily require an external source to tell their viewers/readers to edit WP; it's the fact that WP is mentioned tied to this is enough that I would (and I did, over at WP:AN a few days ago) that this exists out there. Not necessary to take any editing action, but just to prepare for potential incoming new/IP edits. --Masem (t) 15:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard, Come now, it's difficult to believe you know how to say 'well, I disagree with [whatever you you disagree with], (and note to disagree with anything I wrote requires not one wit of discussion of the author, because nothing I wrote discusses or even mentions the author - the comments I made would apply to any journalist who wrote what I was writing about), and it's also difficult to believe you don't know how to ask 'what impact might this have on the article?' if that is the question you have. Do you not know the article discusses the Carlile report and what lead up to it? That subtopic of the article by its very nature is filled with facts and opinions from multiple angles (just read the Carlile report, if you don't think that). And yes, passim Masem, it is exceedingly important to the integrity of Wikipedia, we keep very clear the demarcation of facts and opinions straight in such a matter (see, WP:NPOV, and see the first section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch especially 'attribution' and 'said'). As for any insistence of having to have a worked-out concrete edit proposals at the beginning of the discussion, that's not only contrary the consensus use of talk pages and therefore wrong, but it makes absolutely no sense to bar discussion before a proposal may arise (that odd claim of 'don't discuss before proposal' is basically backwards). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to take much more of my time with this. You quoted Hitchens' piece, and argued with Hitchens' points. Not somebody else. Hitchens' piece is not used as a source. There are a kajillion opinion pieces about the Bell affair, and we are not currently citing any, and we are unlikely to cite any. What you think of what Hitchens thinks is not something that belongs on the article talk page. Both are irrelevant with regard to improving the article. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

But your assumptions and conclusions are still wrong, my actual talk page comment is wholely focused on ideas related to the article, not person. At the time I wrote on the talk page, the George Bell (bishop) article discussed a referral to the police, without relaying what came of the investigation, and the George Bell article prominently uses "found" when discussing opinion, which MOS warns confuses fact and opinion. The article also only relates part of that opinion and not the opinion on using the civil-law standard. The few quotes in my comment (aimed at dividing fact and opinion) relate solely to these issues, and they are very few in relation to the entire long published source. Now, if you read the Carlile report, you will see that the author of the published source is described as a person representative of other people ("people such as") interested in the George Bell matter, and as a journalist who hosted a laudatory television program on George Bell. [176] pp 25 and 52. So, while it's not just anyone-off-Fleet-street in relation to Bell opinion makers, it is still the case as far as the talk-page comments I made: no mention or discussion of the author is needed or done. Again, my comment is only focused on ideas, not person. The article is likely prone to the fact/opinion blur, which I addressed in my comment and all in the context of the sub-topic of the George Bell (bishop) article. All this is what WP:Talk says we do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I recommend that some admin close this tread and trout Alanscottwalker already. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If you do not want to be here, fine, but repeating of your demand from your OP is needless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Masem. I find it next to impossible to view this deletion as justifiable under WP:TPO, not to mention simple norms. Force-deleting talk page comments is extremely rare and is virtually never done to an established editor in good standing, even if their comments are somewhat off-topic. The comments were clearly related to the article, and the alleged motivation that ASW simply wanted to "argue in a place Hitchens can't respond" is nothing more than an aspersion based on a bad faith assumption that I don't see as being justified. I'm inclined to restore the comment, and please don't delete other editors' comments unless there's a rock solid justification under WP:TPO, if for no other reason than it creates more drama and disruption than simply letting it be would cause. Swarm ♠ 18:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no difference (except the formatting) between ASW's comment and the stuff at the Malaysia airline below. I get it that you might be wanting to slap me back a bit and I could hear that, but I call bullshit to what you wrote there. If you want to restore it and hat it or close it, fine, but please don't leave it open.
  • And User:Masem I am disappointed that you argue it is useful to "correct" prospective newbies through hypocritical action. People watch we do, not just what we say. ASW only gives his opinion in his response to http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/goodbye-wikipedia-and-thanks-for-all-the-laughs.html. Inviting more of the same in response, and more of the same from ASW in response. Etc etc ad nauseum. It is exactly what goes in the comments section of Hitchens' column. It is precisely not what we do here, per WP:NOTFORUM. There is no policy-based justification for that post to remain, especially not on a page where we have a banned editor railing in the British press. These are the situations to heed NOTFORUM more, not less, and certainly not selectively.
  • I wonder at what point either of you would find it valid to halt and hat the discussion if the post remained, and people came and argued with ASW's response to Hitchens, on the same grounds as he argued with Hitchens. None of which has anything to do with actual article content, but rather the general topic.
  • The correct answer to people recruited to the page by Hitchens' column is "Neither your opinion nor mine is valid here; we generate content summarizing reliable sources based on the policies and guidelines." Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC))
    • I don't buy it. When we know a topic has drawn attention from some external event (like an article published in a well-read paper even if that paper is not an RS for us), we should be proactive in at least preparing the talk page (we can't proactively protect pages unless its something like a Colbert effect). And I don't see anything in ASW's commenting on the points specifically relative to the article on Bell (and not to how Hitchings was treated by WP admins) that is trying to extend the discussion, but simply precautioning, point-by-point rebuttals so that if Hitchings or any reader wanted to try to argue, our talk page is prepared. Trying to say that ASW was purposely extending the discussion with Hitchings on the talk page is throwing aspirations at what ASW did. (The only caution I would have to this approach is that if the external article introduced a crazy accusation against a BLP with no support, evidence, or the like, we should not be repeating that if no other RS is repeating that either. Could AWS worded the section header/lede better to make sure it was not meant to be a start of a discussion? Sure, but I see zero harm against WP, talk page use, or BLPTALK here. Importantly, WP needs to be very much aware of what is happening beyond the bounds of RSes to be able to properly fight vandalism and other potential problems, which is all part of article improvement - its to avoid disruption, which is always an improvement. --Masem (t) 23:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      • User:Masem -- If you glance at the talk page as it stood when ASW posted, you will see that there was already a note posted about Hitchens' blog/Spectator columns. There was no "alert" function in ASW's post.
      • ASW's "point 1" is taking issue with Hitchens saying The police, in England, have precisely no statutory role in the investigation of crimes allegedly committed by the dead.". There is no dispute in the article about whether to say anything about whether the police had any "statutory role". There are no sources even brought to determine if we should. This is just ASW arguing with Hitchens about something irrelevant to the article.
      • ASW's "fact 2" it is a legal absurdity for any English tribunal to say it has found no reason to doubt an allegation". ASW's response is That's not even masquerading as fact, it's all opinion. That could not be more clearly just arguing with Hitchens. In addition, there is no dispute in the article about whether to say there is a legal absurdity here. This is just ASW arguing with Hitchens about something irrelevant to the article.
      • ASW's point 3, has to do with Hitchens' focus on Carlile's finding that no prosecution would have been brought. This point actually is somewhat relevant - in the section above KingsIndian and I were discussing exactly what to say about that specofic Carlile finding. However, neither KingsIndian nor I based anything we were saying on Hitchens' perspective or blog/Spectator piece (the content went in and stayed in the article because there are 2 high quality independent RS that are simply reporting on the overall case, which mentioned that part of Carlile's finding). And in any case what ASW wrote about that, was irrelevant to any analysis of whether we should include discussion of that or not. So, again, not about improving the article in any way that is relevant to how we write articles.
      • ASW's summary statement So, all in all, let's keep 'fact' and 'opinion' delineated appropriately, especially in matters of controversy. has nothing to do with any actual ongoing discussion or confusion - it is directly solely and squarely at Hitchens.
      • What ASW was doing there, was just arguing with Hitchens. I understand the impulse, as I noted above. That doesn't make it any more appropriate to do on this or any article talk page, on any level.
      • The harm is a) it invites more of the same (I note that you didn't answer how to handle the inevitable opinion-based counter argument, and opinion-based counter-counter argument, etc); b) it is not what article talk pages are for in spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines; c) there is just something icky and unfair about arguing with Hitchens in a forum where Hitchens cannot respond. I won't go so far as to say "BLP violation" but it is just... ick. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I read the same three points as ASW address any person that might read Hitching's column in the DM and come to argue those points on WP. Maybe points 1 and 2 aren't even in the article now, but I can easily see readers of the DM coming to address "Why doesn't WP cover this important fact?" ("Fact" as defined by them) Unless there is additional evidence that AWS purposely added that forum post to debate with a banned editor (and I'm working under the good faith assumption ASW knew Hitchings was banned), a good-faith reading of ASW's action with that post seems to only be preppring for the inevitable debate from new IP/editors. Were I in AWS's place, I might not necessary have addressed each point by point but I definitely would have brought attention that article existed in the DM and prepare editors to deal with any readers of it that would come to complain. This is particularly of note in how hostile Hitchings' post is towards WP. No, it doesn't call for action, but its in between the lines there. If anything, this is a trout situation at this point. ASW should probably know just to caution about such articles and not worry about the point-by-point until it happens, and others need to assume more good faith in talk page discussions from established editors. --Masem (t) 02:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It's perfectly reasonable to expect fans of Hitchens to read the column and come to the article to try to argue, and I don't see how a preemptive response could possibly considered disruptive enough to warrant unilateral deletion. Masem is exactly correct that the AGF reading accepts that ASW's stated motivation here is the truth, and AGF is non-negotiable unless there is evidence to the contrary, which I'm still not seeing. You can have the opinion that it "doesn't improve the article", but that doesn't actually give you any right to delete good faith comments from established editors. I find it very unconvincing that ASW simply wants to argue in a venue where Hitchens can't respond and thus chose that talk page to do so. Is there anything to indicate ASW carries a grudge against Hitchens? Is there anything to indicate that ASW has a problem with using talk pages appropriately? If so, then present evidence to justify the bad faith assumption. If not, simply let him say his piece and move on. Swarm ♠ 03:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog's assumptions and conclusions are still wrong. No, I have no grudge, the aspersion regarding me is false. Jytdog's 2:43 comment also misrepresents: by twice leaving out the crucial and prominently placed word, "Fact", which I most intentionally included in my post. Read my single post comment as a whole. Although there seems to be grudging admission now, days later, that at least part of my comment was pertinent to the article, it misses the context that each part builds the sum of the whole, and actually all my comment was pertinent to the article. "Fact" is crucial because my comment was directed and motivated by keeping fact and opinion straight in the George Bell matter, and I was thinking of the George Bell article, not the published-source author - the George Bell article already discusses both fact and opinion, so it is still and of continuing importance to keep them straight. The things I was thinking about in the George Bell article, are the alluded to police investigation, which also ties to the criminal (reasonable doubt) and civil (probabilities) standards, which are mentioned and alluded to in the article, which also ties to the Carlile report's treatment - the Carlile report is both subject and cite in the article (see also, the issues like using "found" when discussing opinion). These things are what motivated my single comment - I deny that I was trying to carry-on against any User (banned or otherwise) that claim is just false aspersion, and was never in my thinking -- the talk page is open for multiple past and future posters to discuss sources used and not used on the subject. Jytdog's 'icky' claim is 'icky' because his attempted smear is what would bring the project into disrepute, not my post. The post I made is both in the spirit and letter of policy, the removal of the post and the bad-faith, are not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Also, This Jytdog claim against Swarm, being personal, "I get it that you might be wanting to slap me back a bit". Appear to be unaccountable personalization, smear, or aspersion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm and Masem - at no point did I say or imply that "ASW simply wants to argue in a venue where Hitchens can't respond and thus chose that talk page to do so". I have said that ASW wanted to argue with Hitchens (this is obvious); I have said that the effect of doing that on the talk page is unfair due to Hitchens' inability to respond (i did not say this is intentional and I will say that I do not think ASW intended to do that); i have said that it was bad judgement on several levels. Bad judgement happens (as both of you are saying here, with regard to my removing it). It is not about "good/bad faith" it is about "judgement".

Neither of you have responded, as to how you would respond to Hitchens' fans coming and responding on the same basis. Please do look at the comment, and imagine how things play out if fans of Hitchens would come to the talk page, see that, and want to respond exactly in line with what is there.

I've proposed a resolution; namely that the comment be re-instated and closed or hatted per WP:NOTFORUM. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

On the last point as to resolution, that's 100% fair. I've said trouts all around on the matter.

But on the hypothetical, Hitchens' readers would likely come to the Bell talk page and post Hitchen's points, possible word for word, and arguing why they aren't included. It would be wholly inappropriate to delete those comments (the talk page is not under any DS or 500/30 as was the case in GamerGate), so they need to be addressed, and what ASW replied to seems like the current consensus on the matter for the state of the article; Hitchens' points cannot be included for various reasons. Doing it in the way ASW did now gets a jump on that and may eliminate much of the back-and-forth from these readers that do not understand WP policy on these types of controversial subjects. Even if Hitchens' readers came to the page and asked those points, that would not be consider NOTFORUM, because part of our duties as established editors is to explain how we handle these types of topics to new editors/readers, otherwise we are just being BITEY and not being an open wiki. --Masem (t) 14:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, we have a resolution. We won't agree (apparently) on whether the post was useful or appropriate, but we don't have to. :) I am hearing the pushback on this type of behavior from me, from you and Swarm. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the day, regardless of whether one thinks of it as a NOTFORUM violating post, WP:TPO does not give reason to remove ASW's post (the two cases where removal is warranted do not apply) You could have hatted it, you could have said, "Hey, NOTFORUM, I would not continue this", a number of other steps that did not include removal, and we'd not be here. Unless there are specific DS applications on the talk page itself, redacting others' comments that are otherwise not violating any talk page / BLP talk page policy/guidelines is inappropriate. --Masem (t) 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's not true that I wanted to do anything to Hitchens, I wanted to discuss, even critique if you like, published sources on the Bell matter -- I only spoke of ideas on the Bell matter -- two sources actually, one in the article (Carlile) and one linked in my talk page comment, both in relation to dividing fact from opinion for the George Bell article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker that is not what I said; what I said -- and what you did -- was post specifically to argue with Hitchens. I don't think you thought through what you were doing but I really don't care why you did it. You did it. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"Specifically" and generally, the source-author is irrelevant to what I wrote. What I wanted and did was to comment upon the linked, and Carlile sources' Bell related facts/propositions/ideas/opinions, and what they may mean for the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Masem - there are three reasons why the post was bad: 1) not about developing content; 2) unsourced opinion about an opinion-source that we are very unlikely to use as a source; 3) arguing with a banned editor within WP. This is a very weird situation where the banned editor has a newspaper column. I get it that you don't care that ASW was actually arguing with a banned editor who was carrying out the dispute here in his column, and who actually cannot respond here in WP. I don't understand why you don't care about that. But we are not going to agree. So shall I restore ASW's comment and hat it, or will you do that? Let's move on. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

1) The post was and is about developing content, which is why it discussed Bell matters related to the article. 2) The discussion of the sources in relation to the Bell matter is discussion of the sources in relation to the Bell matter, and is what we do on talk pages. 3) The purpose and manner is to discuss sources, regardless of author (at no time did the author enter into my comment). If you want to argue with someone, go ahead, but my purpose was not to argue with any one person, it was to discuss/critique/elucidate what sources may mean in relation to the article development. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• (←) @Jytdog: I'm fine with the compromise solution because this isn't getting anywhere. Just so we're clear, I have no desire to "slap you back a bit" nor am I attempting to convey "pushback on this type of behavior". I appreciate your efforts to enforce talk page guidelines and I appreciate you as an editor. I find it unusual that I disagree with you on something, and as the OP I'm sure you are surprised as well. However I quite simply disagree with your deleting of a comment from an established editor that can be reasonably construed as having constructive intent. There's a fairly high threshold for force-deleting a talk page comment per WP:TPO, and I get that you and others feel it's not a constructive post, but I'm just not seeing it qualifying as "prohibited material" when assessed in good faith. A closure can be appealed if an editor objects, but a deletion is completely dismissing the content as disruptive and the is left with no recourse but instead the implication that they are being disruptive and will be blocked if they persist. I don't see that as being the situation here. Swarm ♠ 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As compromise, I would agree to boxing the comment (this discussion is closed) although that is sad when discussing sources. No, to collapsing and we collectively do not have consensus on Forum issues (so, 'closed per compromise'). Would you like me to do it? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, thanks for your very clear and kind response. I hear you. It is weird that we see this so differently.

I can only acknowledge that you and Masem don't read ASW's post the way I do. I will yield to whatever the consensus here is of course, and will (finally) stop repeating myself. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker thanks for accepting that compromise. I don't care who does it. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've done it. Thanks to both parties for agreeing on a compromise in spite of a stalemate. If there are no other final thoughts, this can be closed. Swarm ♠ 19:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shanzatiwa edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Shanzatiwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Washington State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Shanzatiwa is a new editor (~300 edits).[177]

Krist Novoselic is a former member of Nirvana. He subsequently attended Washington State University. Editor has repeatedly inserted an unsourced (and false) claim about Novoselic being one of 39 WSU alumni to receive the Regents' Distinguished Alumnus Award since 1962, by added Novoselic name to existing prose on that article within the "Notable alumni and faculty" section.

Sequentially:

• 13 June 2018 - Editor adds Novoselic [178]; I revert with "new claim not in existing citation, failure to update the total count if valid"[179]

• 24 June 2018 - Editor readds same content via revert, without edit summary[180]; Then adds citation[181] with "Added cite' for alumni - krist novoselic" which does not reference the "Regents' Distinguished Alumnus Award" and only mentions "In 2010, he enrolled in an online program through Washington State University"; I revert with "rvt; 'Distinguished Alumnus Award' not in cite" [182]

• 25 June 2018 - Editor reverts "I added a source that is reliable, plus the other people don't have sources? Stop deleting my information" [183]; adds four additional (non Distinguished Alumni) citations "citing to backup my claim, including The Rolling Stone official website as a source - the former secretary of state in washington, Krist Novoselic." [184]; Another editor revert to stable with a pithy comment [185]

• 26 June 2018 - Editor is blocked, with admin comment appended to existing "June 2018" section already mentioning RS, WP:BURDEN, and the "distinguished alumni" issue with a comment of "This is pretty much a 'one chance' block. When the block expires if you continue to add unsourced content, blank relevant info, or falsify references you will very likely be blocked indefinitely."[186]

• 9 July 2018 - After the original block warning was removed, the same admin reminds with "You blanked my final warning from your talk page, but you continue to use poor sources and overlink whenever you edit. You really need to review WP:OVERLINK and WP:RS if you want to avoid another block of your account."[187]

Note, there is a lessor and still ongoing issue with WP:OVERLINK, also called out by the admin on 26 June 2018 diff.

• 20 August 2018 - Editor reinserts the non-supporting citations via revert, without edit summary.[188]

Related, editor has very recently created both Folk soul (one "cite" of last.fm/tag/folk-soul) and Hands up (music) (four cites, similar quality/accuracy issues, and non-WP:RS) articles. Both of those appear headed to AfD.

Editor is demonstrably unable or unwilling to pair content creation/edits with WP:RS citations which support those edits. Has not changed behavior based on prior Talk page messages or prior block. WP:CIR (and lang?) seems to be the issue. While Novoselic-WSU was repeatedly flagged for the editor, in hindsight the editor does not seem to recognize the "Distinguished Alumnus Award" aspect was the narrow issue despite callouts in edit summaries and their Talk, rather that intentional insertion of false information/bad cites. However, the two new articles seem to confirm ongoing, problematic understanding of pairing RS citations and text. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Krist Novoselic is still listed in Washington State University as a recipient of the Regents' Distinguished Alumnus Award. Is this not properly sourced? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, still inaccurately listed. The "DAA" claim is not sourced and today's revert of the reintroduction of the non-supporting cites[189] should have been paired with removal of Novoselic's name. Expunge of Novoselic should follow, whether now/later. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Deliberate re-insertion of the false claim that Novoselic won the Regents' Distinguished Alumnus Award (after the June 26 final warning) would surely call for an indefinite block at this point. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, done. I don't think this editor understands the concept of sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked user misusing talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User talk:Lilpgag was blocked for vandalism and is now misusing their talk page. See this edit. Should their talk page access be revoked? EclipseDude (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple new editors making similar unconstructive edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Four users, Arsalanfasate, Rohit999ckt, Kshitijbagal, and Danielfernandes2701 have made unusual unconstructive edits. They each added a similar unnecessary definition to an article. These edits were made at similar times to each other. I am suspicious about what is going on. I'm writing this here because I'm not sure what to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arsalanfasate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rohit999ckt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kshitijbagal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Danielfernandes2701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamond Blizzard (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Diamond Blizzard: Happened to see the ANI notice on a few talk pages while I was blocking. I just blocked a big group of sockpuppets including these four. In the future, the best place to report this kind of thing is at WP:SPI. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I must have forgotten about SPI. Thanks for the reminder. Diamond Blizzard talk 03:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the full list, by the way: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samadhan Gawand. Not sure if it's some sort of botched school project, but they were being disruptive and there's no professor or anything identified anywhere I can see who could have been contacted before blocking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justlettersandnumbers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Very unporofessional and bias editing. Agressive and intolerant behaviour. Arrogant and self-fulfilling remarks. No attention is payed to the content of the article and its importance. Very disappointing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avhahn (talk • contribs) 10:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Presumably, this conversation is the background: User talk:Justlettersandnumbers#Weissenburg, Zscheiplitz--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of it, more at User talk:Avhahn. No need to notify me of this now, by the way, as I've already seen it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

[190] here you go. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copy/Paste Userpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a blatant copy/paste copyvio of this page on User:SariMitfa. I am unable to tag it under speedy deletion due to an edit filter, so I am reporting it here for administrator action. EclipseDude (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted and warned. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted and warned again. I'm blocking on the next occurrence. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ranting editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looks like this editor needs a cooling-down period diff:

this filthy eurocentric propaganda BS is peddled every where, the rest is not tolerated. Wikipedia should be renamed Eurocentric neo nazi piece of crap. The anthropomorh is enough evidence to demolish this eurocentric brahmi derivative of aramaic BS, we indians not interested to shoving indian history to barbarian european shit, keep your garbage to your own articles.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Add diff,diff, diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Their user page is also being used as a platform to accuse other editors of Nazism, membership in the KKK and various other aspersions. Having reviewed the articles in question their main objection is that Wikipedia neutrally covers the Hellenistic cultural impact of Alexander the Great. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, or putting it another way, WP was ignoring the "native" Indian contribution to early Buddhist art. I added a few lines to Buddhist art in response a couple of days, where he had something of a point, but he has now gone completely nuts. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and he's edit warring across several pages and violated 3RR at Sculpture. I've filed a report at WP:AN3 [191]. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Khirurg (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, how is this editor still here? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, in what I suspect will be the penultimate entry in the block log. Fish+Karate 12:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

One month seems appropriate length. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible this account is compromised? They looked to be mostly rational and productive several years ago and no edits for several years, then popped back up with this nonsense. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a little bit of odd edit history on their userpage [192] but it's pretty weak ground to establish a compromised account situation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that they didn't find a receptive audience for comments like this one [193] and started getting increasingly heated over the week. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have redacted a couple of unacceptable attacks from their user page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Modernist: No real need to restore the messages to the user's talk page. In removing them, they have indicated they have read them, and that's sufficient. Fish+Karate 13:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Fair enough...Modernist (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kalamarnica mass-adding undiscussed templates and unsourced info to articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kalamarnica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user mainly inserts the template "Historical affiliations" (styled as a quote box) to the articles. I recently got dozens of such edits on my watchlist such as this or this. Whereas I believe there are issues with the info the user adds in these templates (it is not sourced, usually not derived from the articles, and I see some errors and also some selectivity), these issues could have been discussed. The main problem is that they have never been discussed in the first place, and I have never seen any consensus that the templates should at all be added in the articles. I went to the talk page of the user and found my own message left three years ago which the user simply ignored [194]. I left another one [195] which the user ignored as well and continued adding the templates. Today I got this edit on my wacthlist which, among others, adds unsourced info to the article, and I am not sure this info is actually correct. The user produced dozens of such edits per day and apparently never edited their own talk page. I would think a mass revert would be in order, but I am obviously interested in opinions of other users how this problem can be solved. Thank you for the advise.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify that if there is no reaction here (which is fine AFAIC) and the thread gets archived I take it as no objection to reverting their contributions as unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You might want to re-word your thread title to standard English; right now it doesn't make sense. I'm assuming you meant "Has anybody had any experience with User:Kalamarnica?" But even that doesn't explain what the problem is. It's best to state the problem in the thread title so people know right away what to they are going to be opining on. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Softlavender:, I changed the thread title, I hope it is clear now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: I've blocked this user indefinitely as they've been given ample time to respond and it appears to be a textbook WP:RADAR situation. I've made it clear that they will be quickly unblocked if only they indicate that they've read and will follow WP:V and WP:COMMUNICATE. As for the edits themselves, I think these are clearly good faith attempts to improve the articles and in fact the history nerd in me loves the idea. But the issues you raise are certainly valid and I agree that a mass revert is the most appropriate course of action. Swarm ♠ 21:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you, I also think they were making good-faith edits but failed to communicate properly. I hope they will respond somehow. I will still start reverting their edits at least in the articles I have consoderably contributed to.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTHERE, trolling and uncivil behaviour by u:Chetsford

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user has been more than once ([196] [197] even [198]) asked me to take his conduct to ANI; after this extremely POINTY AfD nomination [199], I have finally decided to humour him. The nomination came immediately after I used the publication the article is about as an example (with Wikilink) [200] in another AfD discussion. At this point his behaviour in and initiating of RPG AfDs is actually damaging the project and sucking in the energy of other editors besides myself. Given the context that follows, there is no way for me to WP:AGF that the latest AfD was somehow a coincidence; rather it was clearly an attempt to provoke a reaction. Rather than doing what I have attempted before ([201] [202] [203]) and try to compromise or encourage more norm-governed AfD behaviour from Chetsford, I am finally taking this to the venue where it probably should have gone the moment I recognized the civil trolling that he was doing. If nothing else, this exchange ([204] [205]) should have told me that Denmark was rotting. Also note Chetsford's extremely unconstructive contribution here [206] which shows that his WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and stubborn and UNCIVIL perseverance even after the RSN told him that he was substantively wrong all along, are not limited to his dealings with me, though I haven't seen them appear outside of the RPG domain. So a topic ban for Chet from RPGs (or from AfDs, where he shows CIR issues with BEFORE in general) would be most likely to nip this problem more or less in the bud.

I understand BOOMERANG perfectly well, and fully accept that my interventions in these discussions were not always according to the best traditions of Wikipedia: as I admitted in one of these AfDs [207], I have a weakness for being trolled, and I allowed myself to react intemperately. I named the CIR issues too early [208] and possibly too broadly ([209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214]) or too enthusiastically [215], though Chetsford refused to respond constructively to my efforts ([216] [217]) to de-escalate and remedy when I overstepped, preferring to NOTHEARTHAT and proffer only ANI as a solution. So here we are.

Nominations such as these [218], [219] (indicating WP:WIKISTALKING, since he had clearly found [220]), and previously Myth & Magic (role-playing game) appear from the present vantage point to have been simply highly effective efforts at GAMING and trolling. Note especially this gem [221] and this one [222] - whereas later he averred [223] a familiarity with hobby games - indicating that his previous characterization of RPGs as "puzzle games" [224], "tightly paraphrased puzzle books" [225] and "games exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [226] must have been deliberate provocation. This is extremely UNCIVIL behaviour, and he continues to throw about inaccurate allegations of FANZINES, FANCRUFT and WALLEDGARDENS even after he has been given better information - perhaps the trolliest of the nominations, [227], which he closed perhaps after realizing he had gone to far for the moment, was characterized by his continuing labelling of independent, professionally-staffed magazines as "fanzines" even after he had repeatedly been told better. He has consistently mocked sources [228] [229] and belittled awards [230] [231] [232] even when he clearly knows better than to make those misleading or false statements just to irritate people who actually give two shots about the subject area he is, for his own amusement, sending to AfD. He pretends to believe that RPG publications are not actually books or works of creative art but rather "commercial products ... equivalent to ... concrete" [233] - while it is perfectly acceptable for him to believe this FRINGE position in his heart, and even to express it at AfD, it is entirely UNCIVIL for him to create an AfD just to take a swipe at an editor he is disagree with, and particularly to express his opinion in extravagant language designed only to tick off the editors who customarily participate in RPG AfDs and who are knowledgeable about, and care about, the subject matter. Comparing Hillfolk to concrete in an AfD discussion is pretty much akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust in a feminism discussion: the intent is clearly not to encourage civil discussion of the issues.

There is nothing wrong with putting an article to AfD, even a sourced article like Hillfolk. There is something wrong with doing so immediately after, and because, another editor uses it as a source when explaining a concept in another AfD - Chetsford was simply being POINTY - in the context of 15 other gaming AfDs he launched over a couple of days, including AfDs of sourced articles about award-winning games, game designers and game publishers, in which the nominations themselves were full of trolling [234] and the nominator's arguments about sources [235] were deliberately inflammatory and knowingly misleading or inaccurate.

Tyw7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hobit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HighKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BOZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Webwarlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Pavlor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 09:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Please try to use 50 words or less to summarize: Why does this belong at ANI? What is the issue? What outcome are you seeking? I seriously doubt anyone is going to pick through all of the above to figure out the essentials. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 23:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford is making inappropriate nominations and UNCIVIL arguments at ANI (mostly about Tabletop role-playing games) as part of a WP:GAME/ trolling project and wasting editors' time and energy; he should be topic-banned from either Games and game publishing or from AfDs, to stop the chaos that ensues. Illustrated by diffs, above. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To the specific accusations:

1. Wikistalking: I reject the charge of Wikistalking by reference to the editor interaction analyzer: [236]. As can be seen, Newimpartial and I have co-edited 23 AfDs and mainspace articles. In 22 of those overlaps Newimpartial arrived at the article/AfD only after I did, and usually within minutes. The one point of interaction in which I was the second editor had an initial edit gap of seven months.
2. Civil: I reject by assertion that comparing the game "Cthulu Britannica" to the game "Stratego" is a violation of WP:CIVIL.
3. Trolling I reject by assertion Newimpartial's definition of what constitutes trolling. For example, here he/she informed me it was his/her obligation to "ridicule people" [237]. When I responded by saying "I respectfully disagree. Thanks." he/she seemed to interpret my response as an attempt to troll him/her [238].

The origin of this complaint is twofold:

• Newimpartial believes I am a "clueless editor" vis a vis the AfD process. As proof of this I would cite the fact that he/she pasted the bold phrase "Improper Nomination by Clueless Editor" to the top of six separate AfDs I'd opened [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], prompting three uninvolved editors to warn him/her about personal attacks. I reject the implication that I am clueless/incompetent vis a vis the AfD process by noting I have a 94% [245] match rate at AfD while Newimpartial has a 66% match rate [246].
• Newimpartial seems to have an opinion that no one should participate in AfDs regarding role-play game articles who do not play role-play games and that, in some cases, the rules of fantasy role-play games themselves should guide AFD discussions. Here [247] Newimpartial accused FourViolas of "spreading disinformation", told her she needed to examine the last 10 years of RPG history before voting on AfDS and then declared "you might as well stop contributing now". Here [248] Newimpartial began citing rules from a fantasy game he/she apparently plays seemingly (unless I misunderstand) to justify his/her !vote rationale.

In regard to the proposal that I be topic banned from AfD:

I would note that another editor was recently topic banned from AfD for having a match rate roughly equivalent to the match rate Newimpartial has at AfD (see: [249]). I would also remind, as per above, I have a 94% match rate at AfD. Ergo, while there is precedent for a topic ban due to a chronically high AfD mismatch rate, the proposal in its current form will need a minor tweak.

While I believe a close examination of all the diffs Newimpartial provided, as well as the project page for each diff, will reveal that I have maintained a perfectly calm and polite demeanor in the face of increasingly relentelss declarations of my incompetence, and so forth, I am open to the community's input and will immediately rectify any transgressions I have failed to self-identify and issue apologies where needed. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Before the boomerang hits, I wanted to reply succinctly to each of the above refutations:

1. My evidence for wikistalking is the Monica Valemtinelli second AfD. If this did not arise from stalking, how did you happen to chose that article to nominate?

2. On civility, I presented about a dozen examples of your choices to denigrate the sources or the topics of the articles you presented at AfD. You responded to one, with a good assertion. Can you maintain in good conscience that all of those mischaracterizations and insulting constructions were CIVIL?

3. When I give many examples of you deliberately posting provocative statements in order to provoke a reaction (trolling) you reply by providing an example where you made a typical SEALION "civil" response. How does that respond to my initial claim, besides "I know you are, but what am I?"

In response to my underlying assertion, that you have not conducted an adequate BEFORE in any of your RPG AfDs, and that you constantly - from ignorance or intentionally - make non-policy-compliant argument arguments about sources in that domain, you reply that you have a good match rate at AfD and mind is bad. Mine is bad, because I used to defend marginal cases from deletion in principle. But how is this germane to the competence of your BEFORE work for nominations? Isn't this just another WP:SEALION move of the goal posts? Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh example, Chetsford. Let's talk about this one:

Newimpartial began citing rules from a fantasy game he/she apparently plays seemingly (unless I misunderstand) to justify his/her !vote rationale.

This "(unless I misunderstand)" is priceless, and is the key to the whole utterance, since it gives you an out. My previous statements on the subject were that "the relevance of the petitioner/grantor dynamic extends beyond the game in question" and that "In this dynamic, a petitioner approaches a potential grantor with a request, and the grantor decides whether or not to grant the request. At AfD, whenever the nom has applied inappropriate criteria or done a poor BEFORE, their typical move is to insist that those with a better grasp of the sources not only describe what is there (which is required by policy) but then to show links, which the grantor will either recognize as reliable sources or move the goalposts again."

Whatever the validity or not of my comparison, it is very c!early not "citing rules from a fantasy game...to justify my !vote rationale", which is clearly an attempt to insinuate that I can't distinguish between fantasy games and reality while giving himself an out "unless I misunderstand".

This is exactly the kind of civil POV trolling that Chetsford has been engaged in through his recent AfD interventions, and the time of his response here - everything if days and everything it leaves out - encapsulates perfectly. I also can't imagine a scenario in which an appropriate or CIVIL response to the comparison I made would be to nominate the article for the game concerned for deletion, which was, of course, his response. Newimpartial (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

People use AfDs to discuss the rationale by which an article should be deleted, ergo, I reasonably assume that arguments advanced there are to that end. If you were just describing the rules and game-play of "Hillfolk game" for general community interest, then I regret I misunderstood your intent. However, I'd also suggest you might move general interest gaming discussions to a different forum than AfD to avoid misunderstandings as to their purpose in the future. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As is clear even from the excerpt I just quoted, I was explaining a dynamic of AfD discussions to illustrate why I prefer to identify sources by name without giving links whenever asked, as you well know from the original exchange. But the significant fact is still that your response to that exchange was to send the article about the award-winning game mentioned to AfD (while mocking the award), and later to mischaracterize my post as citing game rules as an AfD argument "unless I misunderstand". Very sly. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The repeated pasting of the 'clueless editor' comment in AfDs is inclining me towards believing that the civility issue may be Newimpartial's. I was concerned when I read "Comparing Hillfolk to concrete in an AfD discussion is pretty much akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust in a feminism discussion:" which indicated to me a total loss of proportionality. I would like to see if Newimpartial restates their complaint in more concise terms but from the diffs of theirs I have looked at I am inclined to consider proposing a topic ban on games of some type – maybe game AfDs? – since they seem unable to maintain perspective and participate in a collegial and civil manner. Jbh ^Talk 00:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note my relatively succinct summary in bold above. I do recognize that the "clueless editor" posting was overdone, and offered to strike it through (diff provided above), but Chetsford did not take me up on the offer; I also attempted to remove the whole initial pisode of bickering with Chetsford from AfD on the basis of NORFORUM, but he declined (diff also provided above). If you look at all my previous AfD contributions you will find some rough edges and stubbornness (especially from my early days defending drafts, a bad habit I abandoned long ago). What you won't find is me posting tit-for-tat AfD nominations, lying or trolling about the nature of sources, moving goalposts and using the whole apparatus of civil trolling as part of a game. I hope you can see that.

I have also found sources and policy arguments that have influenced a large number of RPG AfDs; how would my removal from this area benefit the project, I wonder? By contrast, can see a clear advantage in Chetsford's removal... Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley, just to be clear, do you really think it is CIVIL to send an article to AfD because another editor references it in another AfD to explain a concept? This perplexes me. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do not think the problem here is with Chetsford. I think that Newimpartial is deserving of a swift, sure boomerang, in the form of a topic ban to all AFD topics and a warning about civility.--Jorm (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at the diffs, and my exchange with Chetsford here, in making that determination? Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment I had a peek at some of the AfDs that are at the core of this heated conflict and I will note that Chetsford does seem to have adopted a rather scatter-shot approach to their deletion propositions. While some minor RPGs from France in the '80s may not meet general notability criteria, Cubicle 7 is a very significant publishing house at the moment, and several other games related pages hit in this blitz are also significant. I'd suggest that Chetsford might benefit from taking on mentorship from somebody with a bit of knowledge of the landscape of the industry before going on to mass-nominate more tabletop gaming related pages. I am honestly assuming good faith - although my own incusionist sympathies are pretty evident, I certainly can see the deletionist point of view sometimes. I think in this instance though, Chetsford lacks the industry knowledge to successfully differentiate between non-notable, marginally notable and hugely-significant-within-the-industry articles. All this is notwithstanding the interaction between the two editors of course. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Non-admin response You say that Cubicle 7 is a very significant publishing house but that's exactly the issue being discussed at its AfD. I originally !voted Delete and only recently changed to Keep, but that was after a couple of hours of research and even then, there is only one clear reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I don't see anything wrong with the nomination. I would say that it is still a No Consensus close verging towards Keep - certainly not an obvious Keep. And please, throwing tags like "inclusionist" and "deletionist" around just destroys any cooperative editting environment and creates an "Us and Them" approach. Finally, you shouldn't need "industry knowledge" to find two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, which is the minimum required. Yet, at that AfD and despite the participation of editors with so-called "industry expertise", it has been a struggle. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Just on the substantive question here: I don't have an opinion on the appropriateness of Chetsford's Cubicle 7 nominations (except that he doesn't know what a WALLEDGARDEN is, and he cited it as grounds for deletion in each case).

What I am saying is that his Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk nominations were personally motivated and inappropriate, and that the former must have taken him considerable research to find. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

First: Please property indent your posts! There should be a one ':' equivalent visual indentation for your responses. Failing to properly indent makes following the thread extremely difficult and nearly impossible for people using screen readers.

Second: A common characteristic of your complaints here is that you seem to be taking normal interactions as personal affronts. For instance, just above, you make an accusation of WP:WIKISTALKING yet it is common practice to check another editor's edits if one notices something possibly problematic or even just from curiosity. Beyond that, by making unsupported claims of "being personally motivated", WIKISTALKING etc you are making personal attacks. This is behavior which will likely get you blocked if you do not stop. If I were you I would consider this a warning not to continue to make such attacks. I can not block you but TonyBallioni has also said "The personal attacks on other editors need to stop." and he can.

We have a policy of assuming good faith because we are all assumed to be here to build an encyclopedia and every action taken by any editor should be assumes to be made with the intention of furthering that goal. Repeated accusations to the contrary without solid evidence to back them up (and bare accusations are not evidence) are corrosive to the editing environment. I strongly suggest that you consider that what you are calling civil trolling is more a failure of AGF. For instance consider that comparing the size of a concrete convention and a gaming convention is nothing more nor less than an analogy. Maybe you don't like the analogy but it is not a troll, not by reasonable reading and certainly not with assumption of good faith. Such failures of AGF are why I think you need a break from the contentious environment of AfD. The personal attacks that follow from your failure to AGF though are much worse and must be reined in everywhere else we will end up back here in short order discussing a block rather than a ban. Jbh ^Talk 13:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban Newimpartial

I propose a six month topic ban on deletion discussion relating to games/gaming broadly construed in the hope that editing in areas where they are less emotionally involved will lend some much needed perspective.What I am seeing illustrated here is a complete inability to maintain perspective re AfD's of games. The repeated postings accusing calling another editor a "clueless editor"; the comparison of a comment on a game to the holocaust; the accusation of trolling just above (looked to me like they were using game dynamics to support their position too); and what appears to me to be negative behavior resulting from, as they say themseves, " meet[ing] all diagnostic criteria for being easily trolled"[250]. They are also correct in that "the ADA doesn't recognize those as grounds for accommodation"[251] and neither does Wikipedia. Jbh ^Talk 00:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support all AfD per above Neutral per [252]. Jbh ^Talk 00:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: per TonyBallioni and my comment below his !vote. 01:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 00:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain as an involved party. Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Jbhuntley, I will certainly respect the topic ban if that is the close, but I absoutely did not "compare a game to the holocaust", I compared the the game:cement comparison to an abortion:holocaust comparison, as forms of trolling...

If I am topic~banned, though, it will just be another example where those being trolled are punished while the trolls are free to troll on, which seems to be a pattern at WP as long as the troll appears "civil". Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply per this. You are begging the question. First one must accept that what you say is trolling is in fact trolling. From what I have seen it is not. I have seen you accuse editors who disagree with you of trolling. I have seen you attack other editors who disagree with you. Also, "I compared the the game:cement comparison to an abortion:holocaust comparison" is so inappropriate and over the top yet you defend it. That shows me you have a serious perspective issue.

I strongly urge you to reconsider how you interact and edit here – the message you should be getting is that your is by far the greater issue and you need to learn to separate trolling etc from disagreement. Jbh ^Talk 03:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 03:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever I am or am not doing, I am not begging the question. I believe that any unbiased person, who reviews the diffs I presented in their appropriate context, will see the pattern of civil trolling by Chetsford that culminated in Hillfolk AfD, about which I have said nothing unCIVIL outside this forum (or, I hope, in it).

And I admit that I may be wrong in that judgement, but I went to some effort to actually explain my reasoning above, and I do not assume that anyone who disagrees is trolling, or any other unflattering characterization. I just don't agree. I have observed ANI enough to know that it usually punishes the person who "snaps" and rewards the person who needles the other person until they snap, but evidently not enough to lose my blind optimism that ANI can be swayed by a well-reasoned argument in which the presenter is open about the flaws in their own behaviour and position while presenting evidence of their claims. Oh, well.

If you look at my interactions with editors on and off AfD you will not find me experiencing "Trolling" except from Chetsford, at least not for years. I am fully able to disagree with people on the basis of good faith, and have done so over and over again, including on difficult issues that matter a great deal more than games.

I recognize in retrospect that the game:concrete to abortion:holocaust analogy was inappropriate, but more because it is less acceptable to care about creative works than abortion than anything else. I was trying to come up with an example of deliberate button-pushing that everyone here would understand, because that exemplifies what Chetsford has been doing this week and what, really, I think is one of the key challenges right now in WP discourse - not about games, but about deliberate button-pushing while remaining civil in order to GAME the system and produce drama, in some combination. So yeah, I came up with a distracting and ineffective example. And you don't have to believe me about that either, and I won't me upset if you don't, but that's what I've seen over the last year, coming to ANI and elsewhere on WP, and it saddens me.

I'm not trying to "defend myself" from charges of incivility. I know that I crossed the line, and so also know that my efforts to fix it didn't work. But it will be sad for me if the issue WP choses to address is my using the word "incompetent" where I shouldn't, and not the behavioural issues I have documented above. Newimpartial (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per proposer.--Jorm (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from all AfDs per Newimpartials statement above, which I take to mean he's likely to repeat the issues in other AfDs. The personal attacks on other editors need to stop. Pinging @Jorm and Jbhunley:. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  See, I was thinking about suggesting all AFDs as well, and thought maybe I was being too aggressive. So I support this as well.--Jorm (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I would support all AfD on the principal that the problems illustrated are likely to be both wider and deeper but the evidence shown is limited in scope to game/gaming AfDs so I limited my proposal to that. Also, if there is any indication that the problems extend beyond AfD I would support broadening the ban to those areas as well. Jbh ^Talk 01:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Since this has been raised at my talk, I'll expand my reasoning further: AfD is a high stress area. Viewing someone who you happen to be in disagreement with as a troll and yourself as being trolled because of actions at AfD isn't really compatible to being able to work in the area well. This suggests to me that the issues with the gaming AfDs would expand beyond it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  There's also a lot of calling other people "sealions" when they are the ones doing the sealioning (c.f., my talk).--Jorm (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't call you a sealion on your Talk, nor have I demanded additional evidence, misrepresented policy or sources, moved goal posts, or cherry picked examples. I'm not clear what part of sealioning I might have done, then. Newimpartial (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

On another note, the vandalism of this section is certainly not something I would ever do. I hope somebody will look into it. Newimpartial (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As you will see if you look, my mainspace edits for the last year or more have been largely confined to anti-edit warring and anti-vandalism. You can find my other recent non-AfD contributions at the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans_woman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Woman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans_man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Benjamin

Searching my userid at most of these locations should turn up almost all of my recent non-AfD comments, since I don't think many have been archived. I don't think you will find anything UNCIVIL, although there was an exhausting conversation at the recent Trans woman RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from AfD, and encourage the editor to contribute to Wikia or game fansites instead. Their determined attacks on an editor trying to clean up gamer fan content are not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"Trying to clean up gamer fan content" is not an accurate assessment of Chetsford's AdDs. He has mocked sources that have been repeatedly upheld at RSN, cast aspersions on awards that are at the summit of their creative field and have been invoked routinely at AfD for over a decade, and made the "unique" argument that books aw no longer subject to NBOOK when they are also game products.

On the other hand, when actual non-notable or unsourced game material comes to AfD, I vote to !merge or !draftify, and actual FANCRUFT receives no sympathy (or !votes) from me at all. I am not part of the "problem" and Chetsford is certainly not the solution. Newimpartial (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I disagree completely. You have shown a lot of bad faith toward Chetsford in this conversation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If you would value a current, real time comparative sense of my civility and good faith at AfD in contrast to Chetsford, please look at the Hillfolk AfD [253].

Or the AfD of Monica Valentinelli [254]. Either or both might be enlightening about both myself and Chetsford. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

They do illustrate your lack of good faith and tendency for namecalling, so thank you for giving us such clear examples. MPJ-DK 21:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting perception, but I've just reviewed them again and don't see any namecalling, any lapses in AGF or even any snark on my part. Hmmmmm. Newimpartial (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I will just pull two quick quotes - clueless editor and I will also AGF and assume some kind of intellectual dyslexia - making derogatory comments about someone's intelligence is hardly "good faith" despite you saying that it is. Just because you say it's not namecalling doesn't mean that it's not. MPJ-DK 21:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, again, but so did not use the phrase "clueless editor" or any equivalent in either of those recent AfDs. The phrase "intellectual dyslexia" was my attempt to give a name to the kind of "brain fart" that would be the AGF explanation for Chetsford mis-stating "industry insider at Gencon" (the major convention) and "Guest of honor at Ropecon" [255] with "Industry insider at Ropecon", period.[256] Do you have an alternative explanation in mind? Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

So at this point I suspect you are trolling me, just because you did a strike through of that comment in the first of those AFDs doesn't mean that you didn't use it - denial is really ridiculous considering it's right there on the page. MPJ-DK 00:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you also were not warned about that comment either??  MPJ-DK  00:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't know what you are talking about, User:MPJ-DK. I *did* make the "clueless editor" comment in several of the *earlier* AfDs, was called on it, apologized, and subsequently struck those through, all prior to this ANI filing. In my initial ANI filing above I acknowledged those "clueless editor" edits specifically - with diffs - as inappropriate, intemperate, and grounds for a possible BOOMERANG [257]. I am certainly not denying them.

But I did not make any such comments on the Monica Valentinelli or Hillfolk AfDs, the two most recent, which is what I clearly stated here [258] and here [259] . Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from games-related XfDs. I think Newimpartial's compulsion to be as unfair and condescending as possible towards Chetsford has gotten very disruptive. Most of what Newimpartial is saying about Chetsford is misrepresentations and nonsense, and nobody should be subjected to it just for cleaning up crufty and unsourced back areas of Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 12:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

How is such mockery as labelling established reliable sources "Fanzines" and references to publishers as "Novelty T-shirt companies" and RPGs as "puzzle games" requisite to "clean up crufty areas"? I have provided many more RS in those discussions than Chetsford seems able to find, and when no sources are to be found I vote merge. I'm not arguing against a ban for myself, but anyone actually reading Chetsford's diffs, and especially the Hillfolk nom, has to see the POINT and the GAME. Editors seen inclined to rush to defend the AfD nom in this case rather than looking at the actual work. Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Tarage (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment there may be some backstory beyond the discussion in AFD discussions in the past week that I'm not aware of. Overall, there's clearly an issue here; the overall discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodlust (roleplaying game) is problematic, and comments like [260] are not at all necessary. That said, this seems a standard inclusionist-deletionist argument and I'm hesitant to impose indefinite bans at AFD based on a short-term issue; I'd rather limit Newimpartial to a single comment on AfDs than ban him from that area entirely. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree I disagree with a topic ban as I think that is the wrong approach here. Newimpartial is trying to improve an area of the Wiki from what they perceive as people who do not know the area they're proposing AfD's in (and describing RPGs as "puzzle books" does certainly seem to indicate they may have a bit of a point there.) However just because someone doesn't know an area doesn't mean they can't edit/maintain/propose for AfD. I see that there may be a bit of a civility issue here and potential personal attacks here, but I believe a topic ban is the wrong approach. If we wish to admonish Newimpartial for their behaviour then fair enough, but a topic ban from this area would suggest they're disrupting the area which I'm not seeing. This is a civility/PA issue, not an area disruption issue. I just think that this is the wrong way of dealing with this. Canterbury Tail talk 20:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree For largely the same reasons as the comment immediately above, as the AfD has proceeded, Newimpartial has been rushing around finding reliable sources to support notability for a lot of these articles. And Chetsford doesn't seem to have a strong grasp on the topic, the players or the sources that are reliable within the community; what I see here is a breakdown in civility and assumption of good faith. I don't think Chetsford was trolling. Nor do I think Newimpartial's comportment on the AfDs WRT Chetsford was appropriate. However I also do think Newimpartial's participation in the AfDs was, notwithstanding the incivility, constructive for the goals of the encyclopedia. If this were a physical room I'd sit them down together and tell them to both hash out their differences like grownups. As this is instead an online noticeboard, I'd suggest giving them both a warning and perhaps giving Chetsford a short-term tban on RPGs and Newimpartial an equivalent length iban from interacting with Chetsford. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Newimpartial can continue to provide sources and attempt to beef up articles brought to AFD without participating in AFD. There's nothing about a topic ban that prevents that. Additionally, keeping toxic people in situations "because they do good work" is a terrible idea, and one that ultimately harms the encyclopedia, so I don't think that argument holds water.--Jorm (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I mean I understand where you're coming from but I think this is to a certain extent a very specific personal dispute since Chetsford has characterized RPG books as "instruction books", has said that RPG developers can't be considered creative professionals and argued that a major RPG event construed no more notability than a convention for concrete manufacturers. As somebody peripherally connected to the community (I'm a fantasy author and know a lot of game designers via our shared links) I can easily imagine a lot of people taking very specific offense to such insensitive and misguided statements. But they read more civilly than Newimpartial's angry and personal responses. Which is why I think the best course of action is to separate them. Let Newimpartial continue contributing to RPG stuff and keep them away from Chetsford. Let Chetsford continue doing what they want on Wikipedia but keep them away from an area where their personal biases are preventing them from contributing constructively. Basically I think it takes two to tango and I think both of the parties to this dispute need to have a good long think about their behaviour here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  a very specific personal dispute since Chetsford has characterized RPG books as "instruction books" As stated above, I respectfully reject by assertion that my describing a manual of instructions on how to play a game as an "instruction book" constitutes a personal attack on another editor. First, there is nothing inherently offensive about being an instruction book. Secondly, instruction books are inanimate objects and cannot - by definition - be subject to a personal attack. Chetsford (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  By definition I'm INVOLVED, but I'll point out anyway that there is more to WP:CIVIL than just WP:NPA. Newimpartial (talk)

  Also, User:Jorm, if you look at the ongoing Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk AfDs - or the *vast* majority of my WP contributions, you won't find anything toxic. This is not the only time I have been triggered, but it is a fairly rare occurrence. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  The fact that you believe RPG books to merely be “instructions for playing a game” and nothing else is why I question whether you should be involved in AfDs related to RPGs. And you are mischaracterizing who you assertions would offend. OTOH, the game designers who you said don’t constitute creative professionals would likely take offence at your comments.Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I've been playing RPGs weekly or more often since the year 1980 (38 years) and have written several. And the rulebooks are, literally, "instructions for playing a game." So I'm confused as to why you are saying they aren't, or why you think that's important? Or maybe I don't know what they are? I must be another clueless editor.--Jorm (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  They also contain art, narrative, setting design, sometimes even discussion of performance theory. And Chetsford's reductive argument is to effectively preclude any RPG from notability. Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, some RPG books are purely instruction manuals, but to be honest they're in the minority. Most contain setting information, narrative fiction, art, cartography and many other things well beyond what a game instruction manual would have. In fact many RPG books don't contain a single instruction, simply being the fictional equivalent of a guidebook or history text. Canterbury Tail talk 21:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Okay. Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I am literally staring at my collection of RPG books - roughly five hundred volumes, maybe more - and I'm having difficulty finding one that consists only of narrative fiction, art, cartography, etc. and not rules or instructions in some way. In fact, I think the only thing I have that approaches this is Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas of Krynn. So this argument, too, does not hold water, and continuing to push it insults peoples' intelligence. Either way, this argument sounds like a content dispute, and certainly not worthy of the invective about it.--Jorm (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I think we just slightly misunderstood each other. I said that ones that are purely instruction manuals are in the minority. Excluding D&D (where a huge percentage of everything written can be regarded as rules and stats etc) for most RPGs the majority of what is written and contained in books is not rules or instruction based but just generally informational and setting material. I'm not saying the majority of books have no rules/instructions, but the majority of RPG books are not purely rules/instructions. See the massive number of adventure books, campaigns, setting guides, city books, faction overviews, background tomes etc. Yes most of them contain some aspect of stats (not necessarily rules) but those are minimal in such works. See most supplements for Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings etc. Some books specifically contain no rules, stats or instructions such as the Freeport series, countless supplements for Harn, City of Clocks, multiple third party world books for Traveller, Elminster's Forgotten Realms (to use a rare D&D example), Fly Buffalo's City series among others just going through the books I have to hand.

  Anyway we're really straying, this topic isn't actually about RPG notability but about editor behaviour. I believe there is a civility/PA issue with NewImpartial and believe a topic ban isn't the correct way to address it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• The matter of consequence, User:Jorm, is that Chetsford translates his belief that role-playing books are like instruction manuals and that games themselves are non-artistic commodities, like bulk cement, into the assertion that WP:NBOOK does not apply to RPG books and WP:CREATIVE does not apply to game designers. Therefore this perspective, rather than being harmlessly eccentric, has serious implications at AfD, and he doubled down on it in an interesting way just a few minutes ago.[261]Newimpartial (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Jorm, I won't speak for anyone else, but the example of an instruction-less game book that comes to mind for me would be last year's two-volume Guide to Glorantha. Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would certainly argue that NBOOK does not apply to rule books and yes I am familiar with the topic. RPG's etc are generally products which rate an article if and only if they independently pass GNG and have so much coverage that they can not be addressed in the publisher's article. So I see nothing unreasonable in another editor taking that position and do see an editor who describes such a position as 'mocking', 'belittling' or 'trolling' as being unable to participate in the collaborative/adversarial environment which characterizes AfD. Mind, that is not the only reason.

Who is correct with respect to NBOOK is out of scope here and best addressed at AfD. It is your apparent inability to see such a position as legitimate and choose to see it as 'civil trolling', or whatever, it the point at issue here. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jbh, I'm afraid you have misunderstood my position. I do not regard the discussion of whether NBOOK applies to game books, or whether CREATIVE applies to game designers, to be beyond civil discourse. In fact I welcome and have called for [262] such a civil discussion. What I regard as civil trolling is deliberately and repeatedly mis-stating RPGs as "puzzle games" or "board games", and repeatedly comparing RPGs to such non-artistic commodities as concrete as if their non-artistic status were self-evident and beyond discussion. This is not the position you, Jbh, have outlined, but it is a position Chetsford established in his AfDs prior to my participation and on which he has doubled down, e.g., by ignoring or mocking information he has been given about sources and the topics of the articles under discussion. It is that approach that I am terming "belittling" and "trolling", not Chetsford's substantive position. Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

In future denunciations of me, could I kindly request you provide diffs appended to each specific accusation (e.g. "mocking information", etc.) and use exact quotes instead of paraphrasing? I think that can sometimes be helpful. Vis a vis your concern regarding comparisons I've made between role-play games and other commercial products; to recap, you had ordered another editor (FourViolas) to "stop contributing now" [263] to any RPG AFD because she didn't know about the "Keep" criteria in the "RPG domain" of WP to which I replied "There is no "RPG domain". WP standards are WP standards. There are no special criteria for games; they have to meet the same evidentiary requirements as any commercial product - a car, a refrigerator brand, breakfast cereal, anything.. [264] I apologize if you found that personally offensive, it was not my intent; however, I do stand by my statement as that is my reading of our policies. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I provided a rather full set of diffs relating to specific aspects of your behaviour in my initial filing [265]. However, if you or other editors and admins feel it would be helpful for me to organize the diffs more parsimoniously, or to provide exact quotations for each, I would be happy to oblige.

Perhaps we could start out discussion with the treatment of this diff you just posted [} [266], in which you isolate the phrase "stop contributing now". Interestingly, what I actually said was, "Likewise, if you are going to argue that the Origins awards don't count for Notability in the RPG domain, you might as well stop contributing now and save all of is a lot of wasted energy" - that was undoubtedly intemperate and counterproductive on my part, and I regret the formulation, but it is also quite a different utterance from your selective quotation. I should probably have invited a rational argument why the Origins awards could possibly *not* contribute to the notability of games, but certainly no such argument has been made this year at AfD. I also regard your outsourced assertions that games are *not* cultural products to be uncivil when they involve hyperbole or mis-statements of fact, as here [267], here [268] and here [269].

I also observe that you have not responded to the clarification I made here [270], about the inconsistencies and limitations of your prior "defense" [271]. It might contribute forward momentum to this discussion were you to do so. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

if you or other editors and admins feel it would be helpful for me to organize the diffs more parsimoniously, or to provide exact quotations for each, I would be happy to oblige The way you did it above just now is perfect. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - behavior in this thread, denia of comments he clearly made, makes me question how construtive his contributions can be when someone disagrees with him. Ridicule and namecalling is not how we deal with editors that frustrate us.  MPJ-DK  00:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could look at my reply above and consider striking through the "denial" comment, MPJ, since it appears to be based on a misunderstanding. I'd also point out that the two most recent AfDs, as well as the many Talk Page and RfC discussions I linked above, can be used to judge "how constructive my contributions can be when someone disagreed with me" - as can this ANI for that matter. It's not that evidence is lacking. Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose At this time. Having participated in a number of AfDs with Newimpartial recently and even having warned Newimpartial at one point that his behaviour was disruptive, it is clear to me that Newimpartial has a passion for this subject area and *merely* needs to learn to present their arguments in a factual manner with regards to policies and guidelines and to refrain from commenting on individuals no matter how witty it sounds in their own head. I believe Newimpartial realises now that they've screwed up and their behaviour was unacceptable, but a Topic Ban of AfDs??? That's a little over the top and a knee-jerk reaction. Topic Bans aren't intended as a punishment. If he doesn't learn from this and continues with disruptive behaviour, then sure, but lets see if he has learned anything first before taking a more drastic step. (I also hope Newimpartial takes some time to grasp indentation and formatting!) HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this proposal. If I could offer some analysis though; last night, after informing us in this ANI that he/she was aware he/she needed to take better care with his/her comportment, he/she did a drive-by on my Talk page to call me a troll [272]. I thought that was ill-advised to do in the middle of a TBAN discussion regarding the very issue of name-calling, however, in fairness Newimpartial has warned us that he/she can be "triggered" [273] by different words or phrases. Prior to a few days ago, I'd had no interaction with Newimpartial so am not clear what his/her trigger phrases are - perhaps it's just a matter of asking them to provide some kind-of notice so that other editors are aware to avoid things that might cause them to lose control? I haven't really thought through the logistics of that, and maybe it's not feasible, but just wanted to throw out a blue sky idea. Chetsford (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

<facepalm>.--Jorm (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, IMHO, the solution to incivility, in general, is a block and if that doesn't work, it is repeated for escalating periods of time for each incident. If the real problem here is incivility, a topic ban on AfDs won't fix that making a topic ban on AfDs entirely inappropriate for Newimpartial's behaviour. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree on all counts. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A basic premise of civil interaction is never give unintended offence. There is a corollary, oft ignored, never take unintended offence. If an individual is incapable of distinguishing between intended and unintended offence, and is persistent in attacking those they believe have 'wronged' them they they are not capable of participating in a collaborative environment without causing disruption. There is nothing objectively wrong to being sensitive to slights but it is the responsibility of the one with such sensitivity, not anyone else, to manage it ie WP:AGF. If they can not do so and rather continue to attack other editors then Wikipedia can manage without their services until such a time as they learn. Jbh ^Talk 21:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain that the offence given in Chetsford's case is entirely unintended. They have already explicitly stated that they don't believe RPG designers to be creative professionals - directing offense at literally a whole class of authors and they persist in insisting that their complete lack of knowledge of this creative industry shouldn't at all preclude them from mass-nominating award winning games, major publishing houses and some of the best-known authors within the genre. After having engaged with Chetsford on several AfDs there's a lot of WP:IDHT going on and, while I still think NewImpartial lost their cool and acted inappropriately with regard to WP:CIVIL the more I look into this the muddier it seems. What I see here is a history of a user who seems to have taken it upon themselves to purge Wikipedia of RPG content for reasons that aren't entirely clear who has responded with condescension when confronted with the often arbitrary and inappropriate character of their AfD nominations; one whose tendentious conduct on the AfDs caused one user who is passionate about the topic, and deeply informed on it, to unfortunately lose their cool. But WP:CIR seems to apply here, and I'm doubtful that Chetsford was competent to assess the relative merit of RPG publishers based on their repeated expression of derision for the genre.Simonm223 (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

They have already explicitly stated that they don't believe RPG designers to be creative professionals - directing offense at literally a whole class of authors - I also do not believe Kip Thorne or Yoshinori Ohsumi are creative professionals. Stating as such is simply a vocational classification and is not intended as a denigration unless one chooses to consider it inherently "good" to be a "creative professional" and inherently "bad" not to be one. Drs Thorne and Ohsumi are both brilliant scientists; the fact they are not "creative professionals" is simply a question of vocational classification. I'm doubtful that Chetsford was competent to assess the relative merit of RPG publishers Articles on WP are not created based on "merit" or how "deserving" one is to have an article; they are created based on our objective notability guidelines. (That said, as it happens, I'm also qualified to assess merit, though that's not a question for WP.) Chetsford (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think User:Newimpartial has "warned us that he/she can be "triggered" by different words or phrases." I think the usage of "triggered" in that instance merely means "proximal cause", as in "To spark a response, especially a negative emotional response, in (someone)." It is a figure of speech rather than something to be understood literally. Saying that you are "not clear what his/her trigger phrases are" is allowing for none other than a literal understanding of the word as used in that instance. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the sequence of events is not clear from Chetsford's comments of 16:28, 18 August. The diff he presented, [274] is a comment that I offered to remove if he were offended [275]; instead he closed the discussion so I could not do so [276] with the ominous edit summary, "this isn't going to end well". This fits the pattern of our earlier interactions: when I offered to strikethrough my "incompetent" comments [277] he did not take me up on it, and when, near the beginning of our interaction on the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD, I unilaterally tried to delete our NOTFORUM digression with an apology [278], Chetsford refused [279]; I eventually struck through just the offensive terms in my comments with additional apologies [280]. If it is not clear from context, I did not mean any personal attack and regret and have apologized for the comments in question.

Also, on the matter of triggers, I don't have PTSD and don't have "trigger words"; my relevant triggers are deliberately misleading statements ("puzzle and game book" [[281]] edited in to replace "RPG handbook" - a little Easter egg I did not see until just now), moving goal posts ([282] [283] [284]and q.v. my reply [285]), false equivalencies ([286], for example) and ICANTHEARYOU (e.g on the term "fanzine": [287] followed by my reply [288] and Chetsford doubling down [289]) - these are the main components of civil trolling - as well as GAMING and POINTY behaviour ([290] in the context of [291] and [292] in the immediate context of [293])

Now I am familiar with the argument, much more frequently heard since Gamergate, "if you can't deal with trolling, don't be active on the internet". And I do try to prepaRe myself and avoid venues where this kind of calculated hostility are more common - I steeled myself for ANI, for example, and try to be careful about Talk pages. When I steel myself, as in the Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk AfDs, I can respond with civility to the incivility of others, as those discussions show. But I had never encountered at AfD the strategies I mentioned in the last paragraph applied with such intensity and consistency. My initial attempt to AGF translated into outrage about competence and the embarrassing mess of my contribution to the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD [294], which I will never do again and the bulk of which I would have deleted last week had I been permitted to do so [295].

To conclude, I recognize that I am easily Trolled and don't ask for special treatment; I know what kinds of discussions I need to avoid and have been reminded that so need to behave as in Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk, and not as in Dominic McDowall-Thomas. I recognize that I have violated NPA in using terms like "incompetent" and "clueless" - I am sorry, have tried to make amends, and will not do so in future.

But there is more to WP:CIVIL than WP:NPA, and the same behaviours that trigger me are, I believe, also destructive for WP as a whole. Therefore I would encourage Admins to consider the evidence set out in my original ANI filing and not let the BOOMERANG discussion - which I did expect - distract from the sustained and still continuing pattern of incivility that was the trigger. I included diffs of my own UNCIVIL posts in my original filing because I felt that it was more important to try to direct attention at a sustained piece of civil trolling than to try to escape personal scrutiny and responsibility for interventions that I acknowledge as mistakes. Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know how to make this any more plain but: none of the things you claim are "uncivil" are uncivil. Not a one. You're reaching, and in so reaching, are wasting a LOT of peoples' time. You're in a hole. Stop digging. Stop posting giant walls of text that no one wants to read. Just stop.--Jorm (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Jorm—"Just stop"? Why wouldn't an editor defend themselves? Oh—they are 100% wrong and those that advocate that disciplinary measures be taken against them are automatically 100% right? In my reading of Newimpartial's post immediately above they are conceding that "I did not mean any personal attack and regret and have apologized for the comments in question." Should they "Just stop" conceding that they "did not mean any personal attack and regret and have apologized for the comments in question"? They said "I am sorry, have tried to make amends, and will not do so in future." But this isn't a black and white issue. Or maybe it is—I haven't looked into this case very carefully. You say "Stop posting giant walls of text that no one wants to read." This whole thing is a giant wall of text. I've had lengthy encounters with Newimpartial. I consider them a well-meaning and entirely competent editor. I've disagreed with them. But I respect them. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - More evidence than necessary is better than not enough. A clear and detailed case for such a sanction, if one exists, has not been compiled. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  The diff you refer to was because they had initially posted a wall of text and I do not see how it is relevant to the discussion as it stands now. The material in that wall has now been discussed and the reason for the proposed ban is that the majority of the 'evidence' posted by the OP shows that they have a large and disruptive problem of failing to AGF in the topic area. This leads to them making repeated personal attacks against others editors, even during this ANI [296]. I proposed the initial term limited topic ban as the least intrusive method of addressing this; others thought it should be expanded to all AfD; and, with the diff I cited it seems that the personal attacks go beyond AfD. Canterbury Tail has even gone so far as to oppose this sanction because they see it is a PA problem not an AfD problem (CT please correct me if I misunderstand your reasoning)

  I quite understand your reticence to impose sanctions but I am curious to have your perspective on the behavior which the OP has illustrated in their own diffs. Do you see it as problematic? If so, can you suggest a way short of sanction to address it? The diff I cited here seems to indicate that a 'stern talking to' will not be sufficient to prevent further disruption. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 13:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  "Stern talking to" or not, there will be no further disruption from me, e.g. the terms "competence" or "trolling" and other AGF issues. I can only imagine how this ANI would have gone had I not distracted it with my intemperate remarks. That's not a mistake I'll be making again. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Jbhunley: Thanks for the clarification. Blocks of increasing duration are a better solution for incivility issues when they can be demonstrated. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. With that and the general consensus which seems to be forming I would not object to someone closing this thread with a warning that further failures of good faith or personal attacks will result in blocks – hopefully by admin discretion and bypassing the need to re-litigate things but meh, that is not really the wiki-way. Anyway, I am willing to take Newimpartial at his word where he indicates he has internalized the complaints, criticism, and advice he has received here and will endeavor to avoid a repeat incident. Jbh ^Talk 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban from AFD. I have not seen a clear history from Newimpartial of disruptive behavior from before this past week's AFD discussions, and I believe he allowed himself to become overemotional towards a user that he viewed as being condescending regarding a topic that he felt a passion for. I have sympathy for Newimpartial in this regard, and I can see what drove him to feel that way. That said, he should have backed away from expressing his feelings toward this other user long ago despite multiple warnings, although I believe his assurances above that he will not be making this mistake again. If he fails to do so, he will undoubtedly suffer serious consequences anyway. BOZ (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

With regard to Newimpartial in this overall ANI this is precisely where I stand at this time too. Simonm223 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Realizing I'm largely siding with Newimpartial in the relevant discussions, I think that A) there was a significant behavioral problem with NI but B) I think that's largely improved. If it should reappear, that's an issue. And yes, I do feel that Chetsford is doing his/her own share of trolling. Claiming to have gone to a couple of GenCons and yet being quite so clueless about the subject matter is well past "beyond a reasonable doubt" in my mind. That said, he's mostly been civil and often been quite productive so I really can't figure out what's going on. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Claiming to have gone to a couple of GenCons and yet being quite so clueless about the subject matter is well past "beyond a reasonable doubt" in my mind. That said, he's mostly been civil and often been quite productive so I really can't figure out what's going on. - Hobit: I can tell you what's going on. I'm far from clueless about the subject matter I simply am extremely skeptical about its suitability (in the specific instances into which I've interjected) for WP. As to why I've been civil, it's because I'm a nice person. Chetsford (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Among other things you keep calling Evil Hat a "t-shirt company" even though it's clear from their site that they are a game company (I can't even find a t-shirt for sale there, [297]). You called RPG supplements a "puzzle book" [298] and [299] which they clearly are not. That feels like either you didn't look at the material or you are trolling. 14:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There was also this bon-mot:[300] - needless to say, there are plenty of notable creative works that have neither the Pulitzer nor an author with an OBE, and this speaks toward the odd bias that Chetsford (talk · contribs) displays toward RPGs as creative works. They seem to have decided that RPGs cannot be considered art in any significant capacity, are incapable of greatness and should be stricken from the record. This is an oddly extreme reaction and it makes me question what this editor's underlying motivation is here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"They seem to have decided that RPGs cannot be considered art in any significant capacity" Yes, I think that's a correct summary of my opinion. This is an oddly extreme reaction No, not from a generalist/non-hobbyist perspective. There have been a number of comments in this thread from editors who support my opinion that RPG manuals are classifiable as instruction books. In any case, these are content discussions not appropriate for ANI. Chetsford (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"you keep calling Evil Hat a "t-shirt company"" Correct - I've referred to it as a game and t-shirt company (see, for example: [301]). "I can't even find a t-shirt for sale there," It's the big label on their home page that says "Decals, T-Shirts, and More" and which, in turn, links to their RedBubble storefront where they sell 37 different tshirts. [302] "You called RPG supplements a "puzzle book"" In niche, non-technical topics - which games are - I believe avoiding hobbyist jargon whenever possible and using terminology that is most likely to be comprehensible to the general public. Terms like "adventure supplement" are almost totally meaningless to the majority of people. An adventure supplement is, at its heart, a book of puzzles (see: [303].) Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, that article is about puzzles in computer RPGs, which have pretty much no relation to actual Tabletop RPGs despite the fact that somehow they've gotten saddled with the same label. So not even remotely relevant to this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I *still* can't find anything about tshirts on their homepage and I've looked for 2 minutes. I assume it's there. But that would be a lot like calling the Smithsonian a "t-shirt shop" because they sell t-shirts. And no, they aren't puzzles. No one in the field would even understand what you are referring to if you called them that. Even going as far down the "assume good faith" path as I can, I just can't see this as anything other than trolling. Hobit (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The link Chetsford provided immediately above even explicitly states that story and visuals have become more central to RPGs than puzzles, reducing RPGs to puzzles on the basis of sources like this suggests a failure to actually read beyond the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"No one in the field would even understand what you are referring to if you called them that." I believe our AfD discussions should be open to all WP editors, not just those in the specific vocational field which the AfD touches. However, if identifying Evil Hat Productions company as a manufacturer of t-shirts is something you take personal offense towards, I will certainly refrain from doing so in the same way I would refrain from using any terminology that was likely to offend someone. Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It offends me no more than calling the Smithsonian a t-shirt company. It's simply what looks like an intentional mischaracterization in an attempt to get people to agree with you. And yeah, we don't call "NP-hard" problems "puzzles" to make things simpler for non-specalists either. Puzzle book also appears to be a mischaracterization. They simply aren't that and even the link didn't support you calling them that. I'm having a really really hard time believing you are being sincere. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose In general, our sanctions are not punitive, and I do not see Newimpartial as being so disruptive, yet, that a ban from all AFDs is needed. The user has apologized, and stated they will not do it again in a manner I have found convincing. I feel that this is a case where we should extend a bit of rope, so to speak. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A storm in a teacup. Andrew D. (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this case should be thrown out. It is unclear there is wrongdoing here. That applies to both Newimpartial and Chetsford. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - (edit conflict) given the latest exchanges in this thread I'm leaning toward suggesting a topic ban from role playing games for Chetsford, who does seem to have made it their mission to provoke emotional reactions from gaming enthusiasts via their actions and comments, not for the sake of improving Wikipedia but just to piss people off. While it's true that we rely on general notability to determine inclusion criteria, there's a way to go about suggesting improvements to an article without disparaging the topic and everyone with an interest in it. These two comments (close to directly above, in a discussion about their behaviour) suggest that, at least with respect to this topic, Chetsford is not here to build an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Since a majority of my edits are in article space, I have half-a-dozen GA and FA articles, a clean block log, 95%+ AFD and CSD match rates, and have never previously been brought to ANI, I'm unclear which of the NOTHERE criteria I meet exactly. However, I believe in a continuous process of self-improvement so take all input with appreciation. Chetsford (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford I'll take you at your word on that, then. I don't see that anyone here is impugning your content record, but consider the observations here (not just mine) that your approach to content within this topic is being viewed by people with an interest in it as going out of your way to insult them. If you're interested in self-improvement, please start there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector I agree absolutely with you. The perception of offense is as relevant to maintaining CIVIL as the intention. As I said to Hobit above, "if identifying Evil Hat Productions company as a manufacturer of t-shirts is something you take personal offense towards, I will certainly refrain from doing so". Similarly, immediately after it became clear to me there was offense taken by me using the term "game and puzzle book" instead of "game book" I terminated its use without any further request (having only used it one time anyway). That said, I can't respond to the request one editor has made that I publicly declare RPG manuals as art or literature. That's because my position on that point is germane to the interpretation of an inherent notability guideline; to require me to affirm role-playing games as forms of art would to shut-down any discussion on an application of policy, which would be unprecedented on WP. Chetsford (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear User:Chetsford, I am not personally offended that you lack appreciation for RPGs as an art form. I lack appreciation for "selfish gene" theory as science, and for WWE as interpretive dance, but there we go. We all have our blind spots.

I do become offended when you express your POV in the form of hyperbole that assume what they pretend to prove, as in this example, [304] here [305] and here [306]. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see how that follows; works of art are not inherently notable any more than historical events or any other thing for that matter, and conversely a thing not meeting one person's subjective opinion on art or literature is no criterion for its removal. On Wikipedia, a work is considered art, and an artwork considered notable, if reliable sources say it is so. Whether you or I or any other editor declare it to be or not be art is neither here nor there, not with respect to content, notability, or policy. Your position on the matter is no more germane to interpretation of the guideline than my personal opinion on the deliciousness of cheese curds is central to a discussion on deletion of our article on poutine. I see that it wasn't you that brought it up, but it was in a response to a comment of yours in which you identified a work in a genre which is widely regarded to have artistic merit and compared it to a deck repair manual. I hope you can see that, whether or not you would agree with the artistic merit argument, the comparison was offensive to an enthusiast, whether or not you meant it so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

works of art are not inherently notable I agree. The situation here arose because I (and apparently User:Jbhunley and User:Jorm, I think) are of the opinion that RPG manuals can not meet the inherent notability criteria of WP:NBOOK as they are "instruction manuals". To require, as a condition of editing WP, editors have the opinion that RPG manuals are forms of art or literature means ipso facto that this is a closed area for discussion and we are prohibited from evaluating whether RPG manuals meet NBOOK. a genre which is widely regarded to have artistic merit I have not been shown any evidence that RPG manuals are widely regarded as forms of art outside of RPG fandom itself (though I, personally, think many of the visual illustrations within them are artistic). I have an open mind and am willing to change it on presentation of reasonable evidence to the contrary. No such evidence has yet been offered in response to my requests. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Without taking or intending to give offense, Chetsford's post features pretty much a textbook example of a false dichotomy. The class of "books" is not made up of "art and literature" and "instruction manuals", such that NBOOK depends on belonging to the former class. NBOOK covers all books except for certain excluded classes, and game books are not one of the excluded classes. "Instruction manuals" and "exam preparation books" are two of the excluded classes, along with "reference works such as dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs;" - all other forms of text-based non-fiction and fiction are included in NBOOK, regardless of their literary merit or otherwise. In this context, it seems clear that a work does not cease to be a book merely because it includes some instructions, whether in the title (Steal This Book) or in the text itself (Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors). Arguments that NBOOK does not apply to game books like Hillfolk because they happen to contain instructions to play a game may not be UNCIVIL, but they are certainly unsupported by NBOOK itself. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I agree that NBOOK is not the proper notability criteria to apply to RPG games and supplements. They are a product line. They are not purchased, marketed or reviewed in the same way as a conventional book rather they exist to enhance and expand a gaming experience by providing an environment which allows the players to create their own narrative structure ie they are components of a product (ie the game). They exist to explain, instruct and organize game play.

This discussion, while interesting is out of scope of ANI and should take place elsewhere. To be clear I think they are exempted from NBOOK as "reference material" and, to some extent, "instruction manuals" ie rules. Jbh ^Talk 20:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 20:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support no less than broad TBAN from AFDs This is a long time coming. I see that over a year later Newimpartial is still calling other editors trolls. AFD is a volatile enough area of the project without blatantly disruptive editors like this poisoning the well with their toxic rhetoric. And a quick edit summary check indicates that I'm not the only prior victim to have confirmed TonyBallioni's suspicion.[307] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, until today I had no idea you were still upset by an edit summary from more than a year ago. I unreservedly apologize. Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The above evasiveness is what is beginning to convince me that an indef CIR block may be the only solution here... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposal was hasty. Newimpartial seems finely capable enough to acknowledge where he might be wrong and he is not being problematic in terms of content editing since he is working to improve things. शिव साहिल (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the original issue

Now that we have some clarity on the WP:BOOMERANG response - a warning to NewImpartial and an open admission of their mistakes and assurances they will do better in the future, how about we return to the original issue of whether Chetsford (talk · contribs) is proposing these AfDs in good faith. Having seen them defend their mis-characterization of Evil hat as a t-shirt company on the basis that they also sell merch, and defend their mis-characterization of adventure supplements as puzzle books based on an... being polite... incredibly novel description of how to best provide clarity to a general audience, I'm uncertain that this user is operating entirely in good faith. I still think it's more likely that this is an example of WP:CIR in action and some odd personal biases toward RPGs leading to this rather tendentious interpretation of policy. However, regardless of motive, I'm not convinced that this user's contribution to the topic of role playing games is constructive to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, as I noted before, I'm having a hard time viewing some of his comments as anything other than trolling. A number of his AfD noms have been reasonable. A number of his comments have been on-point and solid. But there is also a strong undercurrent of trolling. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree; see my comment above. For one thing, if a term like "adventure supplement" requires further explanation, then you clarify by wikilinking to an appropriate term, or even create a stub explaining what it is. I don't know why any reasonably proficient English speaker would be confused by the term "supplement", we even already use it in disambiguation schemes in this topic set (e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures (role-playing game supplement)). Insisting that it be called a "puzzle book", an inaccurate-at-best term, is not making the content accessible to a wider audience, it's deliberately misleading, and in Chetsford's case it seems to be with the intent of disparaging the artform with the purpose of offending its enthusiasts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact I just went ahead and did it; see Adventure supplement. Maybe that's not exactly the right article to target, but I haven't played tabletop games in 20 years and that still took me all of 4 minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Insisting that it be called a "puzzle book" No, I don't believe something like that occurred. I personally used the term "puzzle and game book" once, AFAIK (here [308] after I thought that "RPG handbook" might have been too esoteric and edited my original description). I never "insisted" others use it, nor, do I believe I even used it more than once myself. Chetsford (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• But there is also a strong undercurrent of trolling. - Could you provide some diffs? Unless I misinterpret them (in which case I hope they'll correct me), Jbh, TonyBallioni, and Jorm all specifically dismissed that notion in the original complaint by Newimpartial. But I'm always open to feedback! Chetsford (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• "how about we return to the original issue of whether Chetsford (talk · contribs) is proposing these AfDs in good faith"

Sure thing. By my count, of the 388 AfDs on which I've cast !votes over the last two years, 20 have involved RPGs (5%) in which I was either the nominator or !voted delete. Of those:

• two (10%) have been re-listed for lack of consensus to keep/delete/merge
• one (5%) has been closed keep
• seven (55%) are currently open and have attracted other "delete" !votes besides mine
• six (30%) are currently open but have not attracted other "delete" !votes besides mine; however, half of those have only received !keep votes from editors with an overall AfD match rate below 25%

My overall AfD match rate is 95%.

Chetsford (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

By your own count, zero RPG AfDs you have participated in have been deleted, and only half of them have attracted any other "delete" !votes - this is batting well below your own self-reported AfD match rate. Perhaps this should indicate to you that your evident biases on the subject are clouding your objectivity and making you make WP:NPOV mistakes. But what concerns me more at this point is that while Newimpartial (talk · contribs) was quite willing to admit to their mistakes and commit to improvement, you seem to think yourself beyond reproach in this situation which would seem to be untrue. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

For instance, here's an example where you were disregarding scholarship related to the topic, which had been discussed in your previous AfD, by stating as if it were fact that scholarship could not possibly exist. Look, we get it, you don't like role playing games. But your personal opinion on them is clouding your judgment in an unproductive manner. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

where you were disregarding scholarship related to the topic I wasn't disregarding scholarship, I was saying it wasn't scholarship in the first place. And, as of the timestamp, that seems to be an opinion shared by a slim majority of editors there so to suggest I'm somehow going against the grain seems at odds with what's occurring. I appreciate that you disagree with my opinion that role-playing games are not an academic discipline, however, a free and open discussion is how we decide things on WP. No source has "immunity" from critical evaluation. I appreciate your passion on this topic, however. Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, you don't get to decide that, because you don't think that, say, intersectional feminism, is an academic discipline, that therefore a Routledge text on the topic "isn't scholarship in the first place". The same is true with [role play game studies]. If you can't see that leaving out a highly relevant result from your background search at RSN because YOUDONTLIKEIT is a petty decision and a stain on your participation, then I'd suggest you should spend more time on the kind of introspection User:Jorm recommended for me, and which has seemed surprisingly fruitful up to now. Newimpartial (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, you don't get to decide that, because you don't think that, say, intersectional feminism Huh? recommended for me, and which has seemed surprisingly fruitful up to now I don't believe the intent was for you to issue an apology just until the heat was off and then come back with this [309]. Chetsford (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Intersectional feminism" is an example of an area, like role-playing game studies, where Routledge publishes and that some editors don't accept as a valid area of scholarship, just as I might not accept "selfish gene" theory or the WWE; [310]we all have our blind spots.

And in that vein, I understand your confusion about the intent of other editors in this discussion; trying to interpret the consensus of a discussion where one is INVOLVED is generally very difficult, which is why it is frowned upon as a rule. Newimpartial (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

zero RPG AfDs you have participated in have been deleted That's because AFDs remain open for seven days. Almost none of my nominations are more than seven days old. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In the right mood, actually being able to see the goalposts move fills me with a sort of childish delight. Chetsford, more than once you have pointed to your 94-95% agreement rate at AfD as evidence of your competence. But among your 20 RPG-related AfDs, you have already withdrawn one (which was the right thing to do, doubtless) meaning that you would have to agree with each and every remaining close to retain your overall accuracy % in this new domain. You have observed that up to now, you have the only delete !vote in about 35% of your nominations. So even if all of the disputed nominations went your way, you would only have a 60% success rate in your nominations in this domain. Given that you are otherwise so good at AfD, maybe a self-imposed ban would be in order until you have a better "sense of the room"? Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

With trollish comments like being able to see the goalposts move fills me with a sort of childish delight while hypocritically calling apparently anyone who disagrees with him a troll, how has Newimpartial not been blocked yet? And this is coming from a former avid gamer who finds the "puzzle games" debacle laughable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"childish delight" I'm not sure this specific phrasing helps advance a discursive environment, however, I appreciate your feedback. Chetsford (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, perhaps the reason for that is because I don't actually "call apparently everyone who disagrees with me a troll"? (That sounds to me a lot like a personal attack, by the way.) It's been a few years since I wrangled with you, I know, but I don't recall ever accusing you of trolling. Did I? My memory is perhaps not what it once was.

Chetsford, I believe we are supposed to be focusing on the substance of the discussion, and not on the idiosyncrasies of the contributors. In this case, the topic was your impressive agreement percentage, and its relevance to the RPG AfDs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You did; I linked the diff above. And you did it to another editor around the same time. And you've been pretty inactive since, so it's not like the statute of limitations can expire when you're still doing it. I dunno: would it not be a personal attack if I said "a random, seemingly relatively large, number of long-term contributors with no established history of trolling, with whom he disagrees"? Because I presented plenty of evidence in support of that assertion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As a polite request, Hijiri88 could you please keep discussion of Newimpartial in the section on Newimpartial's comportment? This is more to discuss the appropriateness of Chetsford's behaviour. Just trying to keep the two conversations separated a little. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, I had no idea you were still offended by an edit summary from more than a year ago. I am sorry. My comportment in that respect is much improved, I think you can see. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223: Sorry, but that's not how ANI works. Newimpartial chose to open this thread with his characteristic troll charge, and you chose to pile on for your own reasons, but you can't stop me from calling out disruptive comments in the subthread in which they were made, or prevent the cominj BOOMERANG just because you don't like the same editor as Newimpartial. Heck, I might not even like him (I created our now-gone Evermeet article back in the bad old dayp when Wikipedia welcomed such pages), but that's quite beside the point.

Newimpartial: It's not a question of my being "offended". You are not allowed throw troll accusations around willy-nilly as you have been. Trying to deflect and make this about me supposedly holding a grudge for your having targeted me ~600 edits (or around two months of active editing for you) ago just makes me even more convinced something needs to be done to curb your disruptive editing.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88 I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my intent. Within this ANI discussion there was an initial sub-section centered around the original complaint, then a second section about Newimpartial WP:BOOMERANG and then I created a third section to contain discussion of outstanding issues unrelated to the boomerang discussion. I'm not asking you to not bring up your issues with Newimpartial - just to put them in the topic sub-heading that is to do with their WP:BOOMERANG risk. This is mostly because this ANI thread has gotten crazy long and there really are two issues at play here; for the sanity of all participants I'm trying to keep them separated. Also, ultimately, I was asking for compliance, not demanding it. I can't stop you from putting comments related to your history of interaction with Newimpartial in this section, but it's probably going to be easier to find if you put it in the appropriate heading. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make a whole bunch of Chetsford comments in "the Newimpartial subthread"? Anyway, that subthread is a TBAN proposal that seems unlikely to pass at this point partly due to battleground comments from people who always oppose AFDs, partly due to comments like yours that assumed Newimpartial's behaviour was justified in one or another instance, and partly due to people who agree with me and think a TBAN doesn't go far enough; a comment like mine above would have been out of place in the TBAN discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your argument is likely to get lost nested here. But that's on you if that's how you want to do it. I asked, you said no. Whatever. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment sure, we can return to the issue but it would need better diffs than what I have seen so far for there to be any point to the exercise. Maybe Chetsford has been snarky in some responses, but if so it has not been outside what is normal here. The main examples presented in this thread; concrete convention and puzzle book are not even that. Jbh ^Talk 15:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The two diffs provided by Ivanvector (talk · contribs) just above the sub-heading are the ones I consider most inappropriate. Explicitly stating that they don't consider an entire genre to be art is not constructive, especially when the issue is a scatter-shot mass-nomination blitz. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Explicitly stating that they don't consider an entire genre to be art That's my opinion and others are free to agree or disagree with it. Debates about what constitute art are as old as art itself, but I think this is the first time there's been an attempt to settle it at ANI. In the Opera WikiProject I know there's occasionally argument about whether Burletta is serious opera and it's always handled as nothing more than good-natured disagreement rather than a direct attack on the very essence and being of other editors.

mass-nomination blitz By my count, we have more than 2,000 RPG-related articles. In my editing history I have been involved in AfDs on 20 of them (as detailed above), of which 16 were my nominations, constituting less than 1% of the total. Further, this constitutes a minority of all AFD noms I've made in the last week. So I don't believe there is demonstrable evidence of "mass-nomination."

a scatter-shot As detailed above, 70% of recent AfDs in which I've been involved have received other delete !votes beyond my own (and half of the remaining 30% have - at the time of writing - only attracted keep !votes from editors with a AFD match rate less than 25%). So I don't think there's demonstrable evidence of anything "scatter-shot". Chetsford (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Several times you have brought up your historical AfD match rate. I question its relevance here. You being in tune with consensus on other unrelated AfD issues is not an indicator you're in tune here. I haven't seen any evidence that you did anything beyond arbitrarily select some RPG articles to nominate for deletion, and your oft-cited match rate is much lower than normal for this subset of articles by your own reporting. The issue here isn't your conduct on other unrelated AfDs. The issue is your refusal to hear what people are telling you on these AfDs, including denying cited scholarship exists, denying RPGs are creative and generally being unkind. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

generally being unkind Could you provide some diffs of where I have been "unkind". Numerous other editors have specifically rejected this numerous times but I am open to your opinion. I'll just need to know, specifically, to what you're referring. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I have already provided several diffs to that effect, as have others. If you don't see how it's unkind to say to a creative profession as a whole, "your creative product does not constitute art" I don't know what to say to you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

If you don't see how it's unkind to say to a creative profession as a whole, "your creative product does not constitute art" I don't know what to say to you. I am very skeptical that the RPG profession as a whole has congregated at AfD. I think you'll find anyone whose WP article is subject to an AfD will likely be offended by the open and critical nature of the discussion. If we apply the same level of sensitivity to all vocational categories you have suggested we do to roleplaying games, we certainly wouldn't have essays like Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Obviously no one, believing themselves to be notable, likes being described as "not notable." However, I do appreciate your perspective and it serves as a valuable reminder to all of a need for restraint in our interactions with others. Chetsford (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Man. It really feels like some people are really only chuffed because someone called their G.I. Joe toys "dolls" and not "action figures" and got their feelings hurt. Is that what this is really about?--Jorm (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In my case, to the extent I am emotionally invested in this discussion, it's more because there's a lot of overlap between fantasy authors (my friends and colleagues) and RPG designers. Quite a few fantasy authors either sideline as RPG developers or got their start in RPG development, so while I am not myself a developer of these games, I know a lot of people who have been. So it's not so much about what Chetsford called toys as the fact they're being mean tounduly harsh with regard to the creative output of people I like and respect at a professional level. But mostly I'm frustrated that Chetsford is being tendentious in their edits and seems to want to establish their opinion and !vote on this topic are more important than other people, despite a clear issue with WP:NPOV they demonstrate, which rubs me the wrong way. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single person be "mean".--Jorm (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, my main issue is that they are editing in a pov pushing and tendentious manner. But I adjusted my previous statement to be more technically correct. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

seems to want to establish their opinion and !vote on this topic are more important than other people By my count, in only three of the 16 RPG related AfDs I've nominated during my time on WP am I the leading commenter by character count. I'm usually not even the second most verbose. However, I can understand that - when we feel a subject with which we're emotionally invested is being "attacked" - the "attack" sometimes may seem louder than it is.

to the extent I am emotionally invested in this discussion, it's more because there's a lot of overlap between fantasy authors (my friends and colleagues) Understood. I have no emotional investment in this discussion at all. I routinely nominate scores of articles for deletion spanning music, schools, books, neologisms, BLPs, films, etc. The ~5% of my noms related to RPGs are just any other AFDs for me; no more or less. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not certain why you think character count is in any way, shape or form relevant to my concerns with your tendentious editing style on these AfDs and associated discussion spaces. In fact I would suggest your tendency to throw around your AfD success rate is one of the strongest indicators (I am successful on AfDs 95% of the time while all of you average 25%) that you believe your opinion should carry more weight.Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not certain why you think character count is in any way, shape or form relevant Because no other form was offered or suggested. If you have another measure to quantify your gut feeling I'm, of course, open and receptive. your tendency to throw around your AfD success rate Actually, I have proactively mentioned my AfD match rate zero (0) times and reactively mentioned it only three (3) times; each time was in response to a specific accusation, presented without diffs, that I am incompetent at AfD. Three reactive mentions is not indicative of someone "throwing around" something but, as I said above, I think that - when we feel a subject with which we're emotionally invested is being "attacked" - the "attack" sometimes may seem louder than it is. Chetsford (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, nobody I know of has suggested you are "incompetent at AfD" - certainly I have not. What I have suggested is that you have nominated articles imporoperly for deletion, such as Man, Myth and Magic, Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk, and that, for whatever reason, you seem unable to carry out BEFORE in this domain with the expected level of acuity (such as the recent discussion of Designers & Dragons at the RSN, or any of the three aforementioned AfDs, to give the top portion of the iceberg). Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you, or did you not, call Chetsford a "clueless editor"? I'll save you the suspense: You did. So saying that you never called Chetsford "incompetent" and hoping that we believe it is ridiculous.--Jorm (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

All I've ever said is that I don't think Chetsford is competent to assess AfDs in this very specific and limited domain. And this I suspect to be as a result of their very explicitly stated POV regarding RPGs as an art-form. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Simon, I believe Jorm was addressing me. ;)

While I was UNCIVIL and I regret having been so, I believe the context for my intemperate remarks was always clear: I was saying that Chelmsford should not be performing AfDs of RPGs because he has not demonstrated competence in that specific area. Those were the "clues" I was looking for and not finding. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm getting fatigued by this thread. Carry on. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, nobody I know of has suggested you are "incompetent at AfD" - certainly I have not. - Here [311], here [312], here [313], [314], here [315], and here [316] you called me a "clueless editor"; here [317] you deleted my comments in an AfD; here [318] you struck out my comments in an AfD; here [319] you called me a troll; here you seemed to suggest I was incompetent [320], and here [321] you indicated your belief you had an obligation to "ridicule" me. If I misunderstood the meaning of the preceding, I sincerely apologize. Chetsford (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, I have apologized for my incivility. The fact remains that apart from the "maximum Troll" comment - which I have apologized for repeatedly, and which did not reflect negatively on your competence - in every last one of the diffs you provided, I am clear that the context of my concerns is RPG AfDs. Every last one. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am clear that the context of my concerns is RPG AfDs To clarify then, you believe these - [322], [323], [324], [325], [326] - are reasonable expressions of concern? I only ask as it seems to be at odds with your previously profuse apologies for them. Chetsford (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, Chetsford; those were poorly formulated and uncivil comments which I regret and for which I apologize. All I am saying is that these comments all concern your behaviour at RPG AfDs and not any other aspect of your WP behaviour, and I believe that for all my faults as a writer I was always clear on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your candor. Just to ensure I'm clear, you're basically saying you agree with Reyk's comment ("Newimpartial's compulsion to be as unfair and condescending as possible towards Chetsford has gotten very disruptive. Most of what Newimpartial is saying about Chetsford is misrepresentations and nonsense, and nobody should be subjected to it just for cleaning up crufty and unsourced back areas of Wikipedia.")? Chetsford (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would I agree with that? From the experience of your RPG AfDs, I don't have any reason to think you'd recognize actual 'cruft if it bit you in the glutes; I am also confident that, had I wished to go out in a blaze of glory à la S. John Ross at Pyramid (magazine) - now there's a story - I could undoubtedly have worked up something more unfair and condescending that the current diffs can show.

Also, I hold a truly religious devotion to WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and believe that nominating non-BLP articles based on their actual rather than potential sourcing is not only against policy but is a bloody waste of time. But speaking of wasting time, this ANI is likely to close non-consensus, mostly IMO because of my "triggered" incivility earlier, so I do recognize that I am going to be wearing that one for a long while and had better act accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"From the experience of your RPG AfDs, I don't have any reason to think you'd recognize actual 'cruft if it bit you in the glutes" I'm sorry you feel that way. Chetsford (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Would someone please close this? No sanctions are going to come of this. The principals know to apply AFG to their interactions and that further personal attacks will result in escalating blocks. Everyone is advised that as a consequence of being sentient beings with at least nominal free will other people will have different opinions from what we hold, even on things we hold dear. As a consequence of working in a collaborative environment we all must deal with that or find ourselves unable to continue to participate in the collaboration. Jbh ^Talk 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Request to Closer When closing, for posterity, I would request the closing note state that the charges for which this was opened against me (CIVIL, WikiStalking, personal attacks, trolling, and bad faith editing) were not found to have merit by the community, a conclusion I believe should be supported by an evaluation of the consensus or lack thereof. By my count, sixteen (16) editors have opined here (excluding myself and opener), of which I believe 8 7 (User:Cullen328, User:Jorm, User:Jbhunley, User:MPJ-DK, User:TonyBallioni, User:Busstop, User:Reyk and User:Hijiri88) made specific statements that they did not believe I had acted in any improper way. A further five (5) - again by my count - made no comment vis a vis my behavior at all but limited their comments to the matter of other editors. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Having participated in many of the AfDs in question, I can honestly say that I did not ever think that you were trolling, bad fair editing, personal attacks, WikiStalking or CIVIL). I thought you mischaracterised RPG games here and there but nothing malicious and certainly nothing that merited a report here. I had begun to think that Newimpartial was "not hearing" some things due to the amount of denial and repetition and starting to run close to being disruptive but hadn't crossed over. So take as a lesson learned (for both of you), having your behaviour raised and examined on this noticeboard will result in every little incident becoming magnified, taken out of context, interpreted incorrectly, events from years ago being dragged into the spotlight, editors examining every facet of your character demonstrated in your interactions here and - the real point - the manymany hours of wasted time spent by the community on matters that, one way or another, will not result in making anybody's experience here any better. Oh ... and if ever there's a next time your name appears here and you're involved in an incident, you can expect all of this to be dragged up again. My advice ... this is already over. Drop the mic. Walk away. Learn and adjust and carry on. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I made no such statement. I said that you may or may not be engaged in trolling, but that Newimpartial was probably in the wrong to repeatedly accuse you of such, given his history of making bogus trolling accusations. I did not say whether or not I thought you were actually trolling, let alone "make a specific statement that I did not believe you had acted in any improper way". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also like it noted that while I did not comment on Chetsford's behavior, I do not believe that they acted properly, nor do I believe they were right in this regard; I simply feel they did nothing sanctionable, which is a rather key point at ANI. I find that this particular request for the closer to note the supposed good qualities of the author leaves, at best, a bad taste in my mouth. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify I'm not asking for my "good qualities" to be described. I'm asking for inclusion in the closing statement that there was a consensus against (or no consensus for) the "bad qualities" of which I was accused (trolling and Wikistalking), which - by my reading of the discussion - is simply what is supported by the discussion. The reason I'm asking is because my name, and only my name, is in the title of this thread and yet 75% of it - until 5 hours before the closing request - was a discussion about edits of another editor entirely with virtually no commentary about me. This is a very long thread and no one is likely to ever read more than the title and closing note. This was my first time at ANI, and I hope I'm never invited back, but if I am I'd rather it not be said "he was previously warned about Wikistalking / personal attacks / etc." based on a closing note that such a warning was the opinion of the community if it wasn't. I apologize if I expressed myself imperfectly. Chetsford (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; apologies if I came off harsh. I expect a summary will likely say something along the lines of "No consensus for sanction, users are reminded to assume good faith", or something along the lines, based on my past experiences here. This is hardly the most vitriolic thread I've seen, and threads where the original complaint is not considered actionable (for whatever reason) are reasonably common. Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 - my apologies. I misread your statement "Newimpartial chose to open this thread with his characteristic troll charge" as "mischaracteristic". I've struck your name accordingly. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment to closer I have deep concerns about Chetsford's comportment on this topic with regard to WP:TEND, WP:NPOV and WP:IDHT - while I concede any sort of sanction is unlikely, I'd find it particularly inappropriate to have a comment that the orignal complaint was found not to have merit by the community - non-consensus is what we have here. Neither of the two participants here acted beyond reproach, and furthermore, while Newimpartial was willing to admit to their errors, Chetsford engaged in a bizarre defense of citing an array of irrelevant personal edit statistics that seemed intended to muddy the waters of the discussion with irrelevancies. If this thread is, "closed for posterity," it should not be as a vindication of either party. Simonm223 (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have deep concerns about Chetsford's comportment on this topic I note your feelings and, even though they were not endorsed by a consensus of the community, I value them just as much as if they were and take note of them for the future. Neither of the two participants here acted beyond reproach There was no consensus I acted in a way that was reproachful. I believe there was a consensus, expressed in the TBAN discussion, that another editor would avoid a boomerang TBAN conditioned on their issuance of an apology for certain statements and a pledge not to repeat them, both of which were conditions duly met by that editor to their credit. For a closing statement to indicate the community has "reminded" me of civility/GF when the plurality of editors here went on record to indicate I required no such reminder would be an inaccurate characterization of the discussion (IMO). However, I accept we may have to agree to disagree and I appreciate your passion on the topic of roleplaying games. Chetsford (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus that your behaviour, Chetsford, *was* above reproach, and your attempt to allege such a consensus above using a !vote count does you little credit and shows even kess understanding of what is meant by a policy-based CONSENSUS at WP. Undoubtedly you can learn over time.

On a more personal note, I hope your expectations when you invited me to file at ANI in the first place [327] [328] [329] have been fully satisfied. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus that your behaviour, Chetsford, *was* above reproach Correct and I think we agree. Since my behavior, or lack thereof, was never really the locus of discussion, the closing statement should simply indicate there was nothing actionable found in your filing against me and that you agreed to police your comments in the future.

On a more personal note, I hope your expectations when you invited me to file at ANI in the first place have been fully satisfied. ;) My expectations were that you would stop using AFDs to call editors names. Based on your pledge not to do so, my expectations were met. Based on the qualifying statement you just posted that you could have gone out "in a blaze of glory" and been more "condescending" to me if you wanted [330] I'm still worried that TonyBallioni's concerns regarding if the issues with the gaming [of] AfDs would expand beyond it may have been unresolved and your commitment to adjustment was conditional only until the heat was off. But that's probably a different matter. Best - Chetsford (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Enough

I suggest that the main protagonists of this drama read and reflect on this ANI advice. I am rapidly becoming convinced that Newimpartial needs a week block to get the point that when they were told to knock off the attacks it was not a suggestion. (I am not too keen on Chetsford's inability to drop-the-stick evidenced from the Request to closer bit above either) Based on today's posts of "I don't have any reason to think you'd recognize actual 'cruft if it bit you in the glutes" and "is a petty decision and a stain on your participation" it is obvious that they can not do so even in this thread. Jbh ^Talk 13:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with "I don't have any reason to think you'd recognize actual 'cruft if it bit you in the glutes". That is simply saying that the speaker (Newimpartial) has not seen evidence of the recognition of "cruft" on the part of the person being spoken to (Chetsford). We are becoming the language police. Communication should not be stifled unless uncalled-for derogatory comments are made. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

For my part, I apologize. I became too self-interested in ensuring this was closed without a mark on my personal record, and invested into what I perceived to be lobbying by another editor. In doing so, I engaged in a period of self-promotion. This was my first time being brought to ANI and, while that's not an excuse, I hope it is an explanation. With this note I'll shut-up. Chetsford (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be best if this thread is simply closed, quickly, with no action. It devolved some time ago into two editors trading parting shots, and it's clear that it's going to take someone forcing them to stop to actually get them to stop. A rapid close ought to do it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• No action is needed here. Not against Newimpartial. शिव साहिल (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Then for the sake of all, someone close it as I suggested yesterday before someone does something which will result in sanctions which could have been avoided. Jbh ^Talk 17:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MER-C and blocking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I became aware fo this issue at User talk:CangshanCutlery, where they are tryng to retroactively turn my soft block into a hard block by forcing the user to answer additional questions before accepting what they openly acknowledge is a valid unblock request. I pointed this out and they refused to reconsider. I decided to take a closer look and what I’ve found is not good.

For those of you not familiar, practice at WP:UAA for quite some time is to issue soft blocks for persons violating WP:ORGNAME who have made at least one edit that makes the account’s conenction to the name clear. The users’ talk page is tagged with {{softerblock}}, which lets them know that they must pick a new username (either via an unblock request or by simply starting a new account) as well as informing them that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of what name they are using. This method is intended to strike a balance, making our standards clear but also educating the user as to what Wikipedia is and asking them to try again if they think they can edit within those standards.

MER-C seems to have adopted a much, much harsher approach. A quick peruse of their block log shows that in these same types of cases, where most admins would do a soft block (but it is within their discretion to issue a hard block if the spamming was particularly egregious or repeated across multiple pages) they are issuing the hardest possible block, with both talk page and email access revoked, without warning and often without bothering to add a block template, which why would they when they are denying them even the right to appeal? Take for example User:Terese5599. This person made a few edits to their own userpage. They did not spam. They wrote about themselves on their userpage. Not really helping but not harming either. MER-C deleted the userpage and blocked them in the manner described above, no talk page, no email, no chance of appeal, all for making some edits about their own hobbies and interests on their userpage. This is only one example, others are quite easy to find in their logs. This is appalling conduct from an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Beeblebrox: I make no comment on the appropriateness of the blocks, but the example you used (Terese5599) did attempt to spam, in a format commonly known as NTSAMR ("Nothing to say about me really"). Terese5599 is almost definitely a WP:SPAMBOT - TNT ^💖 19:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Soft spam username blocks are a waste of time at best and an invitation to spam Wikipedia, and MER-C should be commended for not using them. People who are here to promote themselves aren’t going to not promote themselves because we ask them to change a username. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, but actually you are very wrong about that. People who get reported at UAA are generally not sophisticated spammers. They wouldn’t be so easy to spot if they were. What they are is people who simply don’t understand that Wikipedia is not social media. Once that is made clear to them they generally don’t continue spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's an outdated view of Wikipedia that doesn't take into account what we have become. These are people who come here to sell a product, nothing more. They aren't as malicious as the firms, but they are equally as destructive. There is no reason we shouldn't treat them like we treat high school kids who make a bunch of penis jokes. There have been a few discussions about this on user talks of blocked users over the past year: all a soft block does is waste renamer and admin time. They shouldn't be made in 99% of the cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know why penis jokes are being called out as particularly worthy of scorn. What about vagina jokes? EEng 00:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In my experience in most cases they don’t come back at all, so it seems pretty effective to me. Neither of us would appear to have hard data though, would be interesting to see some. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely need more hard data about the penis jokes. EEng 00:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox I just wanted to point out that this is a spambot and very typical bot behavior. It sounds legit "My name is xxx, I am xxx years old, from xxx. I like xxx and arrested development" with <br>. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• I thought I agreed with you about User:Terese5599, but then I realized that in each one of their edits, they identified themselves as someone else, and the very first one included an exlink to buy products. Good block there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• (ec) Terese5599 is a spambot, as are all the other "my hobby is ___, my website is ___" accounts (have a look at the first deleted revision). Go to the global account log and you will find literally thousands of accounts being locked, in batches of more than 50 at a time, by stewards for creating very similar pages. A CU of that account may be very instructive. As for the rest, I would only consider a soft block if the user did not edit about the subject implied in their username. It's not the username that's the problem, it's the intention of the user and it needs to be made clear in unequivocal terms that marketing and promotion isn't tolerated here. MER-C 19:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

So, in the case we were discussing, you overrode my decision to soft block, but without actually changing the settings. This sends a very confusing, Orwellian message to the blocke duser. Also, I realized some time ago that most people who do such obvious things are not really “spammers” in the normally understood sense of the term. They simply do not understand that we don’t aloow promotion. I’m not soft on these folks, I’ve blocked thousands of them, but if all they did was created a stupid userpage about their company the soft block does the trick almost all of the time. I may not know much about spambots apparently but I know username violations. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that MER-C is far from the only RFU regular who holds these views. See the discussion at User talk:Joshkapiti. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with TonyBallioni. Soft blocks are almost always a waste of time, and I get very annoyed when I see them, which I do all too frequently at SPI. I'm not as sure about the immediate revocation of TPA. I usually reserve that for very obvious vulgar trolls and socks of known sockmasters.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• A CU confirms that Terese5599 fits the general pattern of a spambot, no sleepers in this particular case, but MER-C is usually good at spotting these spambots (per CU). I can add a couple more recent CU-confirmed examples[331][332]. The original subject of this discussion is a different type of situation, but these NTSAMR spambots are prolific and unredeemable and I haven't seen any block by MER-C to complain about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• I also agree with Tony. While "anecdotal" is the opposite of "data", I do not recall, not even once, seeing a user I softblocked and who was later unblocked for a username change go on to make edits about anything other than the company or website or whatever else it was they were initially promoting. Once in a very great while, they manage to get a (universally terrible) article to survive in mainspace, but that's as much as can be hoped for. I still softblock unless their initial edits were so egregious that they'd have merited an immediate block even without the username issue; I do so solely because that's as much as policy and practice authorize me to do. —Cryptic 20:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s the thing, if foks want to chage the policy, change the policy. As it now stands this isn’t it and I’m pretty darn sure most regular UAA admins do it more or less the way I do. So, to have our decisions overridden is annoying at best. Last actual discussion of these issues I can recall was at this RFC in 2014, where the now -deleted {{coiq}} template, which did this same thing, was discussed and found to be out of play for soft blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Simple solution: don’t block unless they make a promotional edit. That’s what I do. Blocking without a promotional edit serves no purpose. I hate UAA because I find it the exact opposite of NOTBUREAUCRACY and common sense: if someone isn’t being disruptive, don’t block them. If they are, hard block them.

Also, in the case in question, a hard block would have been 100% within policy, it was a promo username with a G11 draft that you deleted here: Draft:Cangshan Cutlery Company (admin-only, sorry). What reason would you soft block them after creating a draft that included this vomit inducing paragraph of spam:

Henry decided he would leave the day to day operations in China and journey to the United States because he likes a challenge. He wanted to pursue the American Dream like all other American Dreamers from The Mayflower to this day.

For anyone else, the rest of the draft isn't any better.

TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Question: The soft/hard blocking debate aside, has MER-C made any blocks to non-spambots without providing notifications, or disabled talk or email access by default without good reason? This complaint implies that they have, and if that is indeed the case, those would be violations of blocking policy. Swarm ♠ 22:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• All you folks that are insisting that soft blocks are a waste of time and should never be used: If that is in fact the new Wikipedia policy, then please delete or rewrite WP:Soft block. Because that is POLICY, and right now it describes exactly the situation that Beeblebrox has been using it for. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, the policy here is WP:UPOL which states If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Beeblebrox apparently hasn’t been following that since he soft blocked a user who would have qualified for a hard block regardless of the username issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, I was actually talking about comments like yours: “Soft spam username blocks are a waste of time at best” and “that's an outdated view of Wikipedia” and “all a soft block does is waste renamer and admin time. They shouldn't be made in 99% of the cases.” You didn't seem to modify your stance with any ifs, ands, or buts, just hard-block-'em-all. If that’s how you feel, why not start a discussion at Village Pump:Policy to rewrite or eliminate WP:Soft block? --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Because policy already allows admins to block spammers without even considering the username, and if they have a username violation and are spamming that’s a double issue. The issue here is that UAA regulars apparently use a spam username as a mitigating factor for things that would get an SPA blocked elsewhere. I don’t see the need for an RfC because the username, promotion and blocking policy are already abundantly clear that admins can hard block if there is ongoing danger of disruption, and in fact that is the only reason we should ever block. While I think soft block are a waste of time and have maybe used one twice, I’m not trying to get rid of the option for the 1% of cases where they may be useful. I just think admins should follow policy and use their discretion to actually prevent future disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m starting to feel like this is a wider problem in which we have two camps, both basically acting in good faith but at opposite ends of the problem:

1. Spam hunters: “We are under attack by persistent spammers and should deal with them as harshly as possible”
2. Regulars at UAA: “We get a lot of unfounded or unproven reports and shouldn’t be hardlblocking newbies who don’t know the ropes, but we should make it clear that promotional editing is wrong.”

Neither of these positions is wrong, but it appears that sometimes they come into direct conflict with one another when a user subject to a soft block actually appeals instead of jst doing the easy thing and creating a new account as they are explicitly permitted to do. I would suggest that in such cases it is in not appropriate for one admin to override the judgement of another and unilaterally impose extra unblock conditions, as was done here. And i would note that unless they change the block settings, as did not happen here, the user is in fact free (both by the block settings and by established policy) to go ahead and just create a new account. I use the soft block a lot. On an average day of activity at UAA, probably 10-30 times. I know I’m not alone in doing so, and this approach was developed over time through consensus-based processes. Like it or not, it is standard procedure. Back-dooring a hardblock is not the way to change a policy you don’t like. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are you prosecuting this? Do you accept the above statements about the user being a spam bot? You are free to use your judgment and soft-block while processing UAA, but there is no need to get knotted when one of the very few anti-spam admins exercises their judgment. Fighting spam is a lot more important than general editors realize because spam bots are becoming better at inserting promotional links and there is no army of page-watchers who will clean up. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• We get several spambots like Terese5599 a day. It's a bot, it's not a person, and it's dead easy to spot. All should be hard-blocked and the spam userpage deleted without compunction. As for the cutlery account, we get dozens like that a day, and 90% of them are here solely to spam. My personal approach is that promotional usernames that make promotional edits usually get hard-blocked, with some exceptions for charities. They are free to appeal, and some do, usually stating that they want to tell the world about their product line. Promotional usernames with no edits get soft-blocked, since they've done nothing but create an apparently promotional username, and non-promotional names that make promotional edits get warned. I normally don't alter another admin's action in cases like this, but I don't think MER-C was out of line. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Edit filter 499 (please do not discuss the filter details, it is set to private) was specifically written to detect these bots and other promotional accounts. Looking at the log you will see the spambots, the promotional accounts with obviously someone behind it, and other edits (the filter isn't perfect). I block the spambots on sight even if they don't complete an edit. I also block them with talk page access revoked because for awhile the bots were set to keep spamming on their talk page. Not as much today, but it is a habit I keep doing. I will soft block promotional user names even if they have edits. However, if I see them continue to edit their talk page after blocked, I change the block to a hard block and will revoke the talk page since they just want to keep spamming. I generally don't alter another block, but I will block a spambot where another admin has deleted the spam page but not blocked the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Labelling editors/administrators actively participating in ongoing efforts to limit the number of spam on Wikipedia as "spam hunters" sounds slightly inappropriate to me, but I am biased here as my approach when it comes to obvious spammers is similar to MER-C and TonyBallioni. The way I see this is that MER-C did not change the block settings explicitly for the purpose of not overriding another administrator's decision. Beeblebrox has a point that the declining rationale (additional unblock condition) was contradicting and could be seen as confusing (if it was a legitimate user) or overriding (for the original administrator), but I fail to see why does it really matter; regardless of the original block setting, I am under the impression that reviewing administrators can exercise discretion on additional policy considerations based on the rationale submitted by the user in their unblock request. In this case, the unblock rationale was far from sufficient and allowing them to simply change their username and spam again (in which they are quite open about it) sounds like unnecessary bureaucracy. The fact that Cangshan Cutlery Company was capable of creating a new account seems rather inconsequential to me. They are unlikely to edit productively under any account, so the end result will probably eventually be the same. Just my thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• There are so, so many people who see WP as a platform for promotion, and when somebody shows up with a CORPNAME and just adds matching promotional dreck to WP, I see no reason to do the softblock routine. (It is really not hard to see it, when a CORPNAME account adds promotional dreck about the company). I understand the kind spirit of the softblock, but that really is AGF as a suicide pact, in 2018. I support swift indefs of these accounts. I want to also say that in my view, MER-C has done amazing work to help the community find and eliminate promotional dreck and the accounts that create it. There is too much work to do trying to build on authentic good faith initial efforts that people make, and trying to clean up after the polluters in existing pages and new articles, and I urge Beeblebrox to reconsider their approach; please do. Please. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I concur with Beeblebrox and MelanieN. Established consensus should be followed, especially for actions that occur on a regular basis. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would just query why Beeblebrox didn't try actually discussing this with MER-C first, on their talk page, rather than coming straight to the drama board slinging out stuff like "appalling conduct for an admin". Fish+Karate 09:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I admire MER-C's work in fighting spam (and have seen that constantly at the relevant venues I sometimes participate at). It seems that there was nothing wrong with hard blocking obvious bots. This thread has not been fruitful and there's another ongoing thread related to policy improvement/clarification. —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE IP/account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

IP refers to me as "Pan-Turkist gay".[333] He also says he will "find and destroy me".[334] This IP is most likely operated by the same person as "Lexghi Raa". Same target articles, same editorial pattern (i.e. removing long-standing/sourced content), same proficiency in English, same edit-summaries.[335]-[336] When I reverted "Lexghi Raa"'s disruptive edits on 19 August 2018,[337] and left him a note on his talk page,[338] the IP suddenly hopped in and reinstated the very same edits on the same low-profile article.[339]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon this participant adds incorrect information without sources, let him give sources188.32.53.182 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 It looks like a duck to me. Thanks for reporting, Louis. I've indeffed the account and blocked the IP for three months. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked user misusing talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See User talk:Originalguy609. User is posting unblock requests which have a somewhat threatening tone. EclipseDude (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

TPA revoked. Also going ahead and preventing email because they're just going to be a timesink at UTRS. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Jytdog Misconduct.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wish to report misconduct by user Jytdog in the Articles for deletion:Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine ([340]).

Jytdog nominated this page for deletion upon his request for speedy deletion being removed by another editor who disagreed with this action (expressed on user's Talk Page). The ensuing deletion discussion page generated counter-arguments and a lengthy back-and-forth. Jytdog subsequently hid all counter-arguments using the allegation of WP:OFFTOPIC. This change results in only pro-deletion arguments being visible. Attempts to revert these edits resulted in allegations of edit warring ([341]). Jytdog has not shown intention to compromise on this matter on his Talk Page after I reached out directly.

I am requesting administrator intervention to address this misconduct to ensure the community can see all arguments related to this case.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not the most usual behavior, but it's not terrible. Certainly not ANI worthy. Fact is, your comments are just completely irrelevant. You need to review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and explain why CCLCM satisfies that guideline, and if you can do that, also explain why it should be on its own article, rather than be a section of the parent article. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiuser5991: I would caution you against WP:BOOMERANG. It also doesn't help your case that one of the major contributors to the "hidden" comments was blocked as a UPE. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiuser5991, could you outline for us your reason(s) for becoming a Wikipedia editor? You've been here all of two days, and have – as far as I can see – made no edit that does not relate to the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Are you here to build an encyclopaedia, or just to promote that institution? If the former, why not visit the Teahouse and ask for suggestions as to what you might do to start being useful? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I mean, Jytdog is right. You're clearly arguing from your COI with numerous, excessively long, non-valid points for a deletion discussion, and then crying 'censorship' when your comments are collapsed. If you want to participate in that discussion, you can start by reading the links included at the top of the page, and attempt to base your counterarguments in policy, not opinion. You're not being silenced because you're a dissenting voice, you're simply being a disruptive annoyance to the deletion process and the most likely outcome of this report is you yourself being blocked. Nobody wants that, so change your approach, take some time to actually learn about Wikipedia's standards and processes, get involved in other areas if you actually want to help, and contribute something productive! Swarm ♠ 21:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wikiuser5991 (talk · contribs) Jytdog's hatting was, at least understandable. In any case, I have modified it to assuage any remaining concerns. If, after reading the pages linked heer you wish to recast your !vote in a way that actually helps the closer, you are welcome to do so. Abecedare (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• And... now they're CU blocked. Natureium (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'm... shocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can I get another opinion on whether or not this constitutes a legal threat? I'm on the fence on this one. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say not. He could be talking about members of the bands or whatever are suing each other while everyone on this site plans to avoid any irregular activity involving lawyers. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I read it beginning as a legal challenge regarding the subject whose outcome could establish or alter some of the details and thus our article would be out-of-date once that has concluded. That's all fine. But then the editor gives us explicit options of "change it or scrap it altogether" (I read "suspend" to mean "delete or hide" rather than "protect from change") as part of a discussion of legal challenges to the material our article discusses? That couches it as a legal challenge to our article itself. Over the line. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Hence my problem. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

DOLT. He is welcome to clarify his intent. But it's uncited and PR-tone, so it should be removed for editorial reasons. I vaguely recall a previous WP situation where one or more members of some band were suing each other or label over ownership of name (and hence continuation as the "real" incarnation of it), but I can't find it now or remember what band. Linking Climax Blues Band for reference. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

DMacks, you should apologize immediately for calling Jauerback a dolt. EEng 20:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Better than WP:Simply Undo Changes, Keeping Mostly Yesterday's Wording, Attorneys Needlessly Grousing I guess. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I could come up with a comeback for that, but I'm laughing too hard. EEng 21:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You might be thinking of the legal battle over the name Sham 69, of which there are still two bands with the same name, despite the fact that one of them has no original members in it ... that one spilled onto WP more than once! Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of tempted to revert it back to March, before they started fighting over which was the real band... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is terrible. It's 90% puffery.--Jorm (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The other band mentioned above was Steppenwolf. Sorry, can't recall when, guessing about a year ago. John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I've tidied the lede and latter history part of the article. It now - neutrally - points out that the current UK band, despite now containing no original members, is the longstanding version of the band, and that the existence of the "new" US band (with one original member) is currently, according to them, subject to legal action. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copy-paste move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Draft:List of works by Frederick Buechner was created on July 19, 2018. On July 23, another user created Frederick Buechner bibliography as a direct copy-paste from the draft, without giving attribution. I would G6 the Frederick Buechner bibliography page to prepare for a move from the draft to that title, but I'm not sure if that would be appropriate here, as several changes have been made to the article (not the draft) since. Particularly, the bold in the lead was removed, the AfC-related templates were removed, categories were added, and a few other miunor changes were made. So, what would be the best action to take here? Possibly a history merge?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've done the histmerge to the new location. Regardless of the merits of copying it to the namespace before it was approved, the article was approved by a reviewer, so re-draftification is probably not on the table without a deletion discussion. Swarm ♠ 02:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor violating ARBPIA, editing disruptively

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Crowtow849 (talk · contribs · logs) was given a notice of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions on 3 January 2018. They did not become extended confirmed until 5:38 today. They claim that Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People is not subject to ARBPIA, and edited it six times before their 500th edit. They also edited Islamic University of Gaza (over half of which concerns the school's relationship with Hamas and bombing by Israel) seven times, including re-adding unsourced material which they had first inserted nine hours earlier.

Aside from that, the editor has been changing locations in various ways, most of their edits falling in the category of not wrong but not the way we do things. Some of their edits are more disruptive, such as these two related to Iran [342], [343]. In May they were asked to stop overlinking by two editors and directed to MOS:OVERLINK with a specific reference to not linking major geographic features. In the past 24 hours, they've made edits such as this and this. The timing leads me to wonder if they were made solely to reach extended confirmed status. I'm not sure what the next step is, but would appreciate some admin eyes on this. They have been notified of this discussion. Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: - probably best to take to AE. There are 1RR vios (namely - [344][345], and [346][347][348] both of which fall in ARBPIA (the early stage of Pakistan/Israel relations being Pakistani involvement in various wars - including sending troops)), 500/30 vios (prior to doing the 500 edit), and possible EC gaming on 22 August - e.g. [349], [350]. I was considering filing there myself this morning.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea and Icewhiz: I've topic banned for a month. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SPA has COI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:AN § SPA has COI

So this SPA Balochworld (talk · contribs) from the day first has been trying to write this BLP Nabil Gabol in a promotional and biased manner using unreliable sources. I fixed this BLP earlier this month, but this SPA is back again and for the past couple of days has been trying to revert the BLP back to his own version which is poorly sourced and promotional. For the past couple of hours, SPA has been edit warring using this account and an IP despite several warnings on their talk page from several different editors. --Saqib (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Comment the user Balochworld (talk · contribs) appears to be "not very familiar" with the policies. Saqib you being the more experienced one, did you try and engage BW for a discussion on this content dispute on the talk page ? I dont see any thread on the talk page, Please do and inform him that Edit summary is not considered a discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 5:50 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)

Several messages were delivered via his talk page but the user did not even bothered to reply. --Saqib (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked Balochworld for obvious violation of 3RR. I presume the article should be reverted to the stable version but I am not going to do that myself. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swift softblock please?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just went to post at UAA and saw it is backed up. Would an admin please softblock User:RoderickMacKinnon so we can clarify if this is WP:IMPERSONATE and if not, get them grounded on COI issues? The person is edit warring to remove well-sourced content about a company MacKinnon is involved with on the basis that the information is "private", which it is not. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: 173.184.195.86, 74.133.176.183

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 173.184.195.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 74.133.176.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite explaining, repeatedly, that Current Events does not generally cover individual deaths, and that the story does not have "widespread international interest", the user in question has repeatedly re-added the story. On my userpage, I spoke with (what I believe was) the same user using two different IPs, and asked them not to continue adding this event. They stated if they did so again, I should report them. Thus, here we are.

• As 173.184.195.86:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

• As 74.133.176.183

(1)

Ideally, I would like this user to simply take the hint, so to speak; they mostly do good work, but this is not great behavior on their part. (Also, I should note that I have reverted a total of four times over the course of two days, which I realize is not ideal.) Another user, Kaldari has reverted them twice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

151.51.116.52

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has been vandalizing many articles and seems to not care about what he’s doing. Look at what he’s done to List of DreamWorks Animation productions. I think we need to block him for a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B001:1F89:257D:4B53:5E66:2F7B (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jim1138 & User:Abelmoschus Esculentus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looking at both users’ contributions the two seem to tag team users they disagree with to get their way and intimidate users with threats as well as violating WP:Don't restore removed comments (see here and here). They even got a user banned over their tag teaming intimidation tactics over their personal opinions a user violated WP:Personal attacks instead of letting the supposed attacked user decide if he was. My suggestion? One of the users must restore the comment removed on Talk:The Big Bang Theory and neither user must aide the other for 3 months and if not a 24 hour ban for both users for violating WP:Don't restore removed comments while trying to tell other users how to run Wikipedia and about rules said users where violating while they themselves were violating rules. Double standards, intimidation and ganging up on people to get their way should not be how Wikipedia is ran. Thank you for listening. 69.36.183.89 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Article talkpages aren't a shrine for obnoxious comments, which were correctly removed. You're abusing user talkpage practice to attack other editors. I'll be protecting that article talkpage for a while to stop the IP disruption and edit-warring. Yunshui has already blocked the latest IP to disrupt. 69.x is warned for harassment. That's how Wikipedia is ran. Acroterion (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) By your logic, if one spots a personal attack, one should not remove it unless the victim decides whether it is or is not. Also, you think that DRAGON BOOSTER is blind by it’s obvious season 11 has a release date that needs to be added to the home media sections instead of being a jerk arguing with a user like they own Wikipedia is not a blatant personal attack, which must be left for the victim to decide whether it is a personal attack or not. Yes, I restored the warnings on User_talk:73.102.218.240, and I was being chewed up here. Violating WP:Don't restore removed comments does not lead to a block, it is neither a policy or guideline which users must follow. If you say that I have double standards, how about considering the type of comment that I restored and that the two IPs restored? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

  WP:3RR, however, is a policy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Apart from this philippic, your only contribution to the encyclopedia consists of vandalizing the article cerebellum. I'm not sure you're the best person to berate others. AE should not have restored warnings and should get WP:TROUTed for that, but the "tag team", "intimidation" and "threat" accusations are baseless. Kleuske (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is worse than being trouted... ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Abel by your logic no WP should be followed if users are allowed to pic and choose which ones can be followed. 69.36.183.89 (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What is WP? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

AE, it's really not worth the trouble to revert warnings if the recipient has blanked them, and it gives them a stick to beat you with. DFTT. Just warn and repeat if something else happens that's warning-worthy, otherwise leave it alone. 69.x, you aren't operating from a position of high moral standing. Acroterion (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Division I

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Division I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has added deliberate factual errors in the articles Pangasinan and Lingayen, Pangasinan, which I have reverted and warned him for. He continues to do this, and has now also vandalized my personal pages. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that this user account is a sockpuppet of User:Shierwin Carl (Shierwin Carl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Both accounts have the exact same edits and Shierwin Carl stopped editing the same day that Division I started. Assuming that this is indeed the same person, he has had multiple warnings now. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

a problem with another user... theinstantmatrix

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theinstantmatrix

This user has reverted several of my Wikipedia edits that have not violated any copyright, and followed the exact copyright rules that other pages have used and in the same format. They were mostly simple character descriptions for a video game franchise, but they have not only told me that it somehow infringed a copyright, but refuse to accept that most every video game or anime page has the exact same descriptions. Also, they have been far from polite about it, and very rude to me. I am sorry for the trouble.

2601:4A:C001:4580:410B:B1CC:F1ED:D5FE (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• So, you're saying the content came from a Kickstarter page, and that's the reason it's not a copyvio? All this demonstrates is that you don't understand anything about copyright whatsoever. Swarm ♠ 04:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• That, and this person didn't even put an AN/I notice on the user's talk page when starting this thread. I put one on, but still. . . ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 10:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It's also interesting that an IP's very first edit is at ANI (unless it's someone who forgot to log in). I think we're in Australia... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Erpert: Actually, this person appears to have a rather dynamic IP (to see other edits likely by the same person, check the /32 range), so it's not really their first edit. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 12:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's why I was skeptical about this being a new user. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Hey all, theinstantmatrix here. The IP is talking about this situation at Red Ash: The Indelible Legend, where 2601:4a:c001:4580:c0fe:dacd:3aa8:5626 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added character lists onto that said article. While doing recent changes patrolling, I reverted the IP's edit, because adding the VG character lists w/o sourcing is strongly discouraged and is usually inappropriate, and posted a {{Uw-vgscope}} on the IP's talk page. He added it again, I reverted it, and at this point the IP's edits were deleted by admin Sphilbrick because it turns out to also be a copyvio from a certain site.

Later, he has posted on my talk page saying that his edits are appropriate because other video game articles have "character lists" on them. I checked articles such as Mega Man Legends and Pokémon (anime); Mega Man Legends do have character lists, but only possible because the related articles around them is well-covered with sources, and the latter is irrelevant, since it's anime. I replied to him, saying that regardless, it's still against policy to plagiarize, and noted that The Indelible Legend is still an upcoming game. The IP replied again, getting angry as he said that "every other page in the world has character descriptions", and saying that I "need to actually learn copyright".

So, user starting with the IP 2601:4A:C001:4580... It seems that you didn't get anything about my message at all. I already told you: copying other people's work... then pasting onto a Wikipedia article, claiming as your own, is severely frowned upon. The characters in The Indelible Legend would only be mentioned in a plot in the future, not in a list. And if I have angered you in some way, I'm sorry, but I'm just another internet user trying to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but now in this case it seems mandatory, to protect the project itself from legal actions caused by some users plagiarizing. theinstantmatrix (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed that information because it appeared to be a violation of copyright. If you think I'm mistaken because it is properly licensed, please point me to the licensing. If you think there are other articles which violate copyright, please point them out and someone will look into them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DS violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Try as I might I cannot find where you report DS violations.

user: 72bikers has breached a number of DS at AR-15 style rifle, but we all has breached the 1RR rule so was not going to report it. However their latest (but one) revert [[351]] was not only a breach of 1RR but inserted some very odd wording and dodgy OR/synthesis (in a very bizarre way). I launched an AE but undid it as I am not sure that is the right venue. So I am not sure how to proceed, I cannot undo the edit (else I will fall foul of 1RR). The user has shown no willingness to listen, and as the edit stands it...well I am not sure what it is meant to be. The users must see how insane it reads. Thus it look like some kind of.. well trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Surely WP:Arbitration/Requests? No comment on the request itself of course. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is what I was looking for, cheers. I will not open until this has been closed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contaldo80

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Contaldo80 has a very aggressive style of editing. As he states on his user page, he has been called a "one-issue editor," and his talk page shows multiple bans [edit: I mean blocks, not bans], 3RR violations, and other warnings. He is clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people, and whether he is right or wrong he shows multiple types of WP:Tendentious editing. I have tried to work with him, tried to reason things out on talk pages, and tried to use WP policies and guidelines when making arguments. However, it usually comes down to WP:IDL with him. He has been dismissive of others who have tried to counsel him as well. Below are difs of some of his more problematic edits. He has even vandalized my userspace with taunts here and here. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs on: One who accuses others of malice/ One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[352] [353] [354] [355]

Diffs on: One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[356] [357] [358] [359] [360] [361] [362] [363] [364] [365]

Diffs on: One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[366] [367] [368] [369] [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] [382] [383]

Diffs on: One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[384] [385]

• From his talk page: " I've been called a "one-issue editor". It's true that I feel passionate about improving knowledge on how gay (and bisexual) men and women have made a contribution to history - small or big, good or bad. The issue of homosexuality in particular has often been hidden in the past - a lack of understanding, fear of persecution, religious intolerance. But it is there if one looks hard enough for it."

Diffs on: One who never accepts independent input
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[386] [387] [388] [389] [390]

Diffs on: Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[391] [392] [393] [394] [395] [396] [397] [398] [399] [400] [401] [402] [403] [404] [405] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_LGBT_issues&diff=853858552&oldid=853858126[

Diffs on: General incivility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[406] [407] [408] [409] [410] [411] [412] [413] [414] [415] [416]

Diffs on: One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[417]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Briancua (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Response:

Assertive editing to ensure that editors are abiding by agreed guidance and in good faith is not the same as "aggressive". It is also not correct to state that my talk-page shows "multiple bans". I do state on my user page that I have been called a "one-issue editor," - that doesn't mean I am a one-issue editor, nor that there is anything wrong with being a "one-issue" editor interested in improving coverage of LGBT issues on wikipedia (provided this is done in the correct way). And I have experienced a great deal of hostility in the past from editors motivated by religious enthusiasm. I don't like the accusation that I am "clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people" - I'd like some evidence to support that claim. I'm not going to be drawn into that and as aside I'll note the fact that it is an established fact that the Catholic Church has led the execution, exclusion and torture of homosexuals for centuries (so I have little to prove in that space).

I have provided material on articles which both sets out the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church in a way that can be seen as both supportive and critical - in fact it is neither, just a desire to be even-handed and neutral. Therefore it is disingenuous to suggest I am partisan or bias WP:Tendentious editing. Instead I would suggest that an examination of BrianCUA's edits will reveal not one single edit that could put the Catholic Church in a "bad light" (it is not up to me to enquire as to whether BrianCUA is a practising Roman Catholic or an employee of the Catholic Church - although if it's the latter then that would imply bias). Instead BrianCUA has been keen to include only material that suggests the Church is "kind" to people that are gay and "loves" them (which I think distorts the historical reality if one is to be truly even-handed). I happily engage with other editors in a constructive manner if they present genuine workable ways forward. None of the issues raised above suggest violation of the rules; and I'd like examination of any faults I have committed to be taken alongside those of BrianCUA - who can, regrettably, "give as good as they get". Contaldo80 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Does the reported party have a response that isn't a wall of text? The reply above is too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Without commenting on the validity of the complaint, I observe that the wall of diffs is from Briancua ([418]), the initial complainant, and not the respondent. Contaldo80's response is just the two paragraphs above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"User:TenOfAllTrades - Thank you. That just illustrates how walls of text do not clarify the issues and are hard to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have mixed views on this. Contaldo80 is in many ways a good editor in the Catholic-sphere on the project: he is able to call out the whackjobs we get in this area (which I definitely appreciate. Our Catholic historical content is really bad and helping it not get worse is a good thing.) At the same time, I do find his style overly aggressive and he isn't trusting of anyone who he thinks may have a bias in the area (for example: me, even though I think anyone who is familiar with my editing on the topic knows that I generally stick to the 17th century and do my absolute best to get rid of the POV stuff sourced to crap sources. I have also never revealed my religion or lack thereof on-wiki, and my interest in this topic area is purely historical on-wiki)
  Nick and I have also had to warn him on this article about violations of the harassment policy by demanding users out themselves: making demands to know their employers and and religious affiliations. He eventually stopped that, but it shows I think a pattern of defensiveness and ownership of the article in question.
  How do we deal with this? Maybe an IBAN, though I don't like those. I wouldn't like to see a TBAN, because he does do good work, but that may be needed because of the aggressive behavior here. I'd personally prefer we close this with a warning to him to have a bit less zeal and be more civil, but that depends on how he responds to this thread going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, BrianCUA, I haven't looked at anything specific (I have that page on my talk mainly in case a slow-burning edit war breaks out so I can use request protection at RFPP), but for any topic this contentious, and on a talk page that is effectively populated by three people (you being one of them), I'd highly suggest treading with caution and taking this to WP:NPOVN or a similar dispute resolution venue to get more eyes, rather than just make bold edits and revert. So, that's a warning to you as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. It's a fair comment, and I'm sure there have been times when my actions and edits have not been what they should be. I have requested outside voices on several occasions (see here, here, and here, for example.). Unfortunately, there has been limited response from them, which lead to this complaint. Your warning is well noted. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni for making some kind comments in suggesting I am generally a "good editor". That's actually much appreciated. Often I wonder if my work is noted or appreciated at all, so it's nice when someone says I have made a difference - even if it's in a small way. To be honest you've hit the nail on the head in that I can be "defensive". This is not generally the case with most articles I edit but it can rear its head when dealing with articles that align homosexuality with religion. Why you may ask? Because we know that in this world religion and gay rights don't mix well. Over the years I have come across a number of editors who get carried away with "religious zeal" (and some of them I have strong grounds for believing were clergy and thus suggesting a genuine conflict of interest). Mostly these individuals mean well but are obvious because they edit out material that can be seen to be critical of a religious organisation, teaching, or individual and that speaks too openly about homosexuality (a topic that has suffered for centuries from being pushed into the corners for fear of causing awkwardness). Personally I think it's right to include material in an article which can be regarded as presenting religious thought or practice in a "positive" light (provided that the approach is neutral), and to avoid material that is derogatory, misleading or unfair. And I can point to many instances where I have done that - look back at my edits. But at the same time there has to be a genuine desire to work towards a balanced and accurate picture - and where that is evident in the approach of editors then my record shows that I happily engage. Therefore yes I can see that religious organisations often talk about "love" and "respect" for people that are gay - and it's right for articles to refer to this where appropriate. But at the same time if the reality (backed by the evidence) shows a less than ideal picture then it is right to make this clear. You cannot begin to count the number of articles where an editor has come in and removed material relating to homosexuality (despite it having supporting and verifiable evidence) simply because it doesn't fit into their world view. The endless vandalism with spiteful homophobic comments - everyone will have encountered these. So I think it's unfair to say my style is "aggressive" - as that suggests I am being unreasonable. I don't think I've ever knowingly included inaccurate material nor shown deliberate bias. And I like to think I have helped to improve the quality of articles. BrianCUA and indeed other editors don't like that I challenge inclusion of material (rightly in my view) that is too "rose-tinted" in terms of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. In terms of the current complaint I can't see that I've violated 3RR or have been abusive - perhaps you can argue I've lacked civility in some instances where I've lost my patience. If that's the case then I am contrite and accept the appropriate discipline. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally I'll give one recent example of where I think BrianCUA is keen to present a narrative overly sympathetic to the official position of the Catholic Church. In the article on "Dissent" I - and another editor - have questioned the over-emphasis on protests by gay people against the Church - disrupting Mass etc. BrianCUA has been determined, however, to suggest this activity has been significant and to give it a profile I simply don't think it deserves in relation to more notable material. But in the spirit of compromise I have gone along with this to a degree, leaving the material in. However I questioned a source cited that was by a gay activist group called ACT-UP whose website had recorded a testimony by an individual that they had thrown a Eucharist host to the floor. BrianCUA has been determined to say that a gay activists therefore committed "desecration" in doing this (a highly loaded term and presenting the idea of a Church under attack). I asked for a second neutral source to provide better comfort with the ACT-UP source as I had reasonable concerns about bias - is there another source that says the eucharist was thrown to the floor? BrianCUA has simply added back in the contentious material that had been questioned and added a second source from the New York Times as justification. This does not, however, mention the host incident at all - and suggests that some parishioners saw the invasion of the cathedral as an "act of desecration". Now this is where I start to worry that we are slipping into partisan editing, and failure to address genuine editorial concerns. I would normally challenge this point but won't for the time-being while a complaint is being formally investigated against me. The edit can be found here: [419] Contaldo80 (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Back in May, this editor accused an IP user of being my sockpuppet without any evidence here. They also reverted edits by different users to the same content on this same article a total of 5 times. It was not all within 24 hours, and therefore not technically a violation of 3RR. But it still shows a very aggressive style and a total lack of concern for consensus. Throughout early 2017, he deleted massive amounts of information on Salvatore Cordileone 5 times without even a substantive edit summary, three times not bothering to write on at all. See for yourself in the edit history. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a violation to accuse someone of being a sock-puppet? In any case my comments were "I would encourage user 32.218.32.56 to set out their arguments on the talk page in a mature way - particularly to address concerns that they are not acting as someone else's sock-puppet". I did not accuse that anonymous IP or being a sock-puppet - I raise the point about having concerns that they suddenly appeared out of no-where to intervene on the article. I most certainly did not accuse you of being the sock-puppet - unless you think this was an obvious link to make? Regarding the Cordileone article I did in fact engage on talk. You will recall we got a third opinion that agreed with me that the material you were trying to include was not appropriate. If you had a substantive complaint to make against me at the time then you should have made it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty obvious link. Regarding whether or not it's a policy violation, at the very least it's a poor tactic to substitute ad hominem commentary for substantive argument. IPs often edit sporadically and frequently don't show up on the talk page. That doesn't mean they're socks. For the Cordileone article, yes, we were eventually able to reach a compromise on the talk page. But it first involved multiple highly inappropriate reverts by yourself followed by admin intervention. Basically, what we are responding to here is a pattern of high-handed aggressive editing and talk page discussion, which I think evidently exists based on the material that I and others have brought forward. Display name 99 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 - a look at the interactions between you and me shows that you have behaved no differently than me. I regarded your edits as no less "inappropriate" and your approach determined to push forward a particular perspective. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted fewer times than you, and all of my reverts were accompanied by relevant edit summaries. Many of those reverts simply involved undoing reverts made by you which weren't explained at all. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

He has made similar accusations against others. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Individual hat boxes

-EEng

That's hardly an accusation. But it was odd as that anonymous IP appeared from no-where to make a number of edits to revert material (without justification or engaging on talk). Then disappeared back into the ether. That to me is questionable and disruptive behaviour.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've taken the liberty of collapsing the wall of diffs into individual hat boxes. No comment on the substance of this report. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional example:' In addition to the wall of text above (I apologize for that - I wanted to be comprehensive), here is one discrete example of the type of behavior I am talking about. Contaldo was bold and edited Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues to take text out of one section and combine it with another. He was reverted, however. Even after being asked to follow WP:BRD multiple times (here, here, here), he continues to revert and insert his preferred version. In fact, he has challenged other editors to explain why the original version should remain before any edits can be made to his preferred version. This has happened on multiple issues. In addition, if you look at the talk page, you will notice there are multiple sections in which he discusses this. Again, this is a common practice. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was reverted by you. I then asked you repeatedly why you thought the suggested changes I made were problematic. You never responded. I raised reasonable concerns that you had created a section up-front which veered towards polemic, and looked extremely odd in an article that concerned politics. It also lacked balance. I moved related material together to provide a stronger narrative and better contextual flow. I don't think you liked it because it "muddied the waters" and suggested the issue was more nuanced and less up-beat than originally presented. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not true that I didn't explain my reasons. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential solutions: There is some evidence that Contaldo80 might be beginning to learn a lesson. He was recently reverted on Raymond Leo Burke. Instead of rereverting the entire edit with an irrelevant or snarky edit summary as he would have been accustomed to doing, he made a compromise edit with an explanation and then opened up a talk page discussion. His edits there and in this separate section have been civil. Personally, I'm hovering between two potential options. One involves giving him something like a provisional restriction lasting 6 months stating that he cannot revert the same content more than twice, no matter how much time has passed. The second is a warning that future repeated and aggressive reverts could result in this action or a block, and that more uncivil talk page commentary in the future (like this comment from less than a month ago, not sure if this was already linked or not) could result in a block. Basically, this would give him another chance before imposing any major sanctions. This would be consistent with WP:Rope. I myself am leaning towards it. Any thoughts? Display name 99 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he is. He must be monitoring my contributions because just yesterday he weighed in on an AfD discussion regarding an article I wrote with a "Strong Delete." I went back 1,000 edits and the only other time he has been active there was when an article he wrote was proposed for deletion. (See also the taunts in my userspace.) --BrianCUA (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." It's not obvious to me that on the article you refer to (and on which I have been previously active) my contributions have been partisan, a personal attack on you or designed to disrupt the discussion. Can I also express serious concern that displayname99 has actually now gone into that article and removed my contribution - despite the fact that he is not an administrator and I have not been found to have done anything wrong in this instance. I am starting to feel harassed and I think a number of editors are going well beyond their remit. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I have not removed your contribution. You obviously haven't looked carefully enough. I made a contribution in favor of Keep. I removed that largely because I didn't want to be accused of being canvassed or of having bias. Your edit is still there and I did not remove it. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have to make an apology. And a complaint. You're right you didn't delete my contribution this article. You did, however, evidently follow my edits to that article page and argue for "keep" (presumably to counter my argument for delete). You then came onto this page to insinuate that I am hounding BrianCUA, when in fact you have arguably been hounding me. This is all becoming rather depressing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I eventually deleted my own contribution out of concerns that it could be seen as improper. The only questionable decision I made was to vote Keep, which I rectified. There is nothing left for you to complain about on that article. Display name 99 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That does show evidence of WP:Hounding. It's not smart for him to do because it obviously doesn't help his case. I'm not quite as interested in the taunts on your userspace because I'm primarily interested in seeing if his behavior has changed at all in the last day or two as a result of this discussion. In that case, the AfD comment is what's important. TonyBallioni, do you have an opinion here? Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect we seem to have ended up in a situation where two editors (neither of whom are administrators) are both deciding how contrite I am and discussing what discipline I should receive. Both of whom have clashed with me in the past and are hardly sympathetic - and both of who have displayed questionable editorial activity on a number of articles themselves and which does not place them "on the side of the angels". One is the complainant and the other describes themself on their talk page as a "traditionalist catholic" and has previously been sanctioned with an indefinite block that was only lifted after appeal. I do have a sense that I've ended up in a kangaroo court. I appreciate BrianCUA has bought a series of complaints/ grievances against me - these are wide ranging and mocking in parts ("righter of great wrongs" - presumably because I've made edits so improve coverage of LGBT issues?) I'm starting to feel that I am being picked on. I would value a proper charge (specific and serious violation of wikipedia editorial standards) being bought against me and then consideration of whether I am innocent or guilty of the charge based on an independent and impartial reading of the evidence. It is only fair then if I am found guilty of a violation that appropriate and proportionate discipline is administered. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure yet on where my read of this takes me, but I will say that complaining that the report here is mocking in parts is a fairly audacious statement, given the diffs that were provided of you taunting BrianCUA on his own talkpage about this. While my limited experience with you has shown you to be thoughtful and even-handed, I find those diffs especially damaging to the notion that you have been taking the high road and aren't being treated/viewed fairly here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about my being thoughtful and even-handed. Much appreciated. I try and accept I don't get it right. I think what especially wounds me about the language above around "righting great wrongs" is my sensitivity to homophobia. It feels like making contributions that ensure even-handed representation of LGBT issues is challenging the "mainstream" and that it's me taking on the world. I'm probably wrong in feeling that way (and I'm sure that's not how it was intended) but that's how it is. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, without really weighing in on the dispute here, I'm going to comment on your approach. To say that you sometimes feel like it's me taking on the world is a nice piece of succinct introspection. If you recognize that you feel that way, I also think maybe that means you need to give yourself a bit of a breather. Not quit, not "retire," but maybe take some time off, even if only just from topics that are clearly so close to your heart. I work in a field where people are pretty passionate, and I sometimes have to remind my staff that they not only do themselves a disservice when they allow stress levels to max out, but they also do a disservice to their projects. The same may be true here. Again, that's not a comment on your contributions, but rather a friendly attempt to point out that if you are feeling the way you described, you need to give yourself some time and space to breathe until you feel centered again, but for your own mental health but also for the betterment of topics/issues that are of such great importance to you. The only other thing I'll say on this topic is that while most other editors might not have such strong personal feelings about this particular topic, I can absolutely guarantee that you are not alone in your desire to see even-handed representation. Grandpallama (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never proposed a sanction against you. The various types of difs I provided are examples of WP:Tendentious editing. I didn't make up a category to mock you. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In your complaint about me you have referred to me as someone "Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV". I do not see how that relate to any existing editorial guidance. I am being mocked for "righting great wrongs" e.g. adding LGBT related material to articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that you want to add LGBT material. That's all fine and good. It's that you give it undue importance. For example, take your insistence that a section heading include the phrase "gay" or "same sex" in the section on marriage. You argue that somehow readers will understand the word "marriage" to include "divorce, fatherhood and family," but they won't understand marriage to include gay marriage. Somehow, to say otherwise, is dishonest (a frequent charge of yours) and you accuse me of "trying to hide away?!" something when I point out that WP:MOS calls on section titles to be concise. This is what I mean when I say that your arguments often amount to I don't like it.--BrianCUA (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that's a fair assessment. Contaldo80, we aren't against you because you add information about homosexuality and the Catholic Church. The problems are aggressive reverting, talk page incivility, biased language on articles (in my opinion), and undue importance. You also don't get to delete sourced information simply because it isn't part of your pet topic. See here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of people who want to define "marriage" as "a man and a woman", I can certainly see where including gay marriage could be useful. Still, I think it would help if the user in question was a bit less fighty, and took the time to state their arguments in a calmer manner rather than lashing out. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, TonyBallioni, Display name 99, EEng, Blackmane, Grandpallama, and Icarosaurvus: and others: This conversation seems to have petered out, but I would like to come to some kind of resolution. Several (Iban, Tban, warning, six month restriction, etc) have been suggested. Can we agree on one? --BrianCUA (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time as far as I'm aware that there has been a general complaint about this user at AN/I, and so I think we tend to give a little WP:Rope. There is a consensus amongst all those who've offered their opinions here that while Contaldo80 may have done some good things on Wikipedia, his editing style is clearly too aggressive and hostile. I don't think an IBAN is good because Contaldo80 edits the same types of articles as many of us, and this would prevent editing by one user or another from being challenged by the other side. That doesn't really work. I'd be fine with a general warning that further excessive reverting (even if not technically a violation of 3RR) will be considered disruptive editing and that this, along with talk page incivility, can or will result in sanctions. Display name 99 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been somewhat on hiatus lately. I don't see that there is a need for sanctions at this point. The issues between the LGBT movement and the Catholic church are complex and not something that is within Wikipedia's remit to solve. More use of dispute resolution, less raised hackles and a warning to stop edit warring is the order of the day. Contaldo80 and Briancua are both long time editors and their contribution to the project is to be commended. However, I shouldn't be needing to point out to long term editors that they should know better than to be edit warring and bickering in this way. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Blocks are preventive and not punitive. (I am not sure I agree that is prudent, but it is the rule.) Therefore behavior that required a block that wasn't provided does not get a block after the fact. However, if a user has engaged in conduct that should have gotten a block, that should be taken into account when another violation is committed. I have not researched the long history in full, but I do see that Contaldo80 did taunt the filing party, and that should have resulted in a block. Therefore my recommendation is that they be warned that future contentious edits will result in an initial block of 5 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Warning that if a block is necessary, it will start at 5 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I like and agree with this approach, and with the reasoning you've offered. I agree with Icarosaurvus for the most part that there just needs to be less tension (and I hope that Contaldo80 will take to heart my pointing out that he has internalized his editing to a degree that is unhealthy), but I also was very bothered by the taunting, which I don't feel should be overlooked, and for which neither any justification nor any apology was offered. No block seems warranted at this time, but I do think a warning about behavior has been demonstrably earned. Grandpallama (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach. --BrianCUA (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I approve of this as well. The 5-day block thing obviously can't go on forever, so we have to set a length of time for it. 6 months seems adequate. Display name 99 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how I forgot about this, but Contaldo was warned against edit warring just three weeks ago. A search of the archives shows that he has been warned and even blocked many times, including several this year. I'm not sure if or how that will affect people's judgement in this case. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I reported him once as well. He was warned here. If Contaldo80 ever does this again, whoever makes a report has to include these diffs. The next violation ought to result in a block. Display name 99 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Two blocks BrianCua. One in August 2017 and one in December 2017 - both for 24 hours. Neither of these blocks were "this year". Nor does this constitute being "blocked many times" - unless twice is "many times". In terms of the comments by Display name 99 I simply note that this is an editor who has had an indefinite block against him in the past, which was only lifted provided he changed his behavior. I'll leave others to judge whether that has happened or not.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think a warning as hard as the one RC recommends is needed at this time; Ultimately, they do good work, and want to improve the encyclopedia, and they're far, far from the most vitriolic user I've seen. (Further down on this very board, there's a user calling a moderator ugly for some imagined bias.) I'd suggest a formal community request to "tone it down", and see if they consent to doing that voluntarily before seeking harsher sanction. Generally, I agree with Blackmane's assessment that the issues between the Catholic Church and LGBT people are complex and outside our ability to solve, and the issues here likely tie into that. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Have we come to an agreement here? It seems as if most people are in favor of a warning. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've finally got around to reviewing this case, and I think it's been established that Contaldo has a persistently aggressive and combative editing and communication style that is not conducive to a collaborative working environment. Was the wall of diffs necessary to establish that? Probably not, his own talk page is self-evident of an overly-aggressive and hostile user. I also think the case here, and the proposed remedies, are greatly overstated. It's definitely a persistent pattern of behavior, but as Icarosauvus suggests right above, it's fairly mild, and easy to understand given the contentious topic area he works in and the hostility of some of the people he has to deal with. We're not going to magically reconcile the efforts of LGBT advocates with those of religious advocates, nor will the problem be solved simply by blocking or drawing a hard line. So, I'll simply ask, since I don't see anyone taking that approach: Contaldo80, are you willing and able to make a good faith effort to address these complaints going forward? This means toning down the incivility, refraining from personal commentary, refraining from deleting sourced content when doing so is controversial, relying more on consensus-building and dispute resolution, reporting problematic behavior to administrators, assuming good faith even with those you disagree with, being receptive to criticisms and feedback without becoming hostile. Basically, all I'm asking is that you make an effort to better adhere to our conduct policies. Is that something you'd be willing to do? I'm confident you're perfectly capable, but this would be best resolved with your understanding the complaints and making an effort going forward. Swarm ♠ 01:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Swarm. I particular welcome the thoughtful comments of Blackmane and Icarosaurvus. I think it unfair, however, that you have described me as "overly-aggressive and hostile". I don't think I deserve this. I also think it's odd that two editors have somewhat been given free rein to speculate as to what my punishment should be. Neither of whom is an administrator - one of which is the primary complainant and one of which has actually received an indefinite block in the past. As I've tried to explain I have had to deal on a constant basis with editors who are primarily motivated by religious affiliation and concern. It's worth taking a close look at the edits of several of my detractors above and you will see a pattern of edits that are consistent in their support for the teaching and politics of the Roman Catholic Church; and entirely absent in terms of anything that could be viewed as counter or critical. That is not in mind what a secular encyclopaedia should be about. Yes it's critical to ensure articles have the right facts and use the right sources etc. But this has to be even-handed - the "bad" facts and stories as well as the "good" ones. I've worked just as hard to add material that is "positive" in clarifying teaching etc as well as "negative" where there have been examples of it not treating people well. In terms of your question - can I make a greater effort to retain good humour and to observe the norms of good editing. Yes, I can. Certainly I can and will make a greater effort. But several editors will be sadly emboldened by this decision against me and this makes it much harder to reasonably argue for balanced, even-handed, non-partisan edits. There has been nothing to suggest that other editors need to work harder too to avoid partisan editing. The material and nuances around how the Catholic Church impacts upon the lives of gay people will therefore inevitably get lost and we will have articles that take a more triumphalist religious tone. I'm increasingly of the view that this may be inevitable and therefore that I should "retire" myself from this debate and from the editing of articles. It can become wearying and tiring and evidently a somewhat thankless task; and even more so when administrators fail to appreciate that some editors would rather Wikipedia hears less from LGBT "voices" rather than more. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pulsifier220

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pulsifier220 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been warned and even blocked for making unconstructive edits towards film articles, mainly in regards to how names are listed in the info box when no known format structure is established, with his current targets I’ve seen being Dora the Explorer (film), MIB (film) and Spider-Man: Far From Home. It sounds so mundane put to words but it grows probmatic when editors undo his edits and he just puts it back. Pulsifier was blocked three times in the span of a month for similar behaviour, and even then it’s still an issue that has persisted, as their talk page is rife with warnings from editors such as myself, @TheOldJacobite: and @NinjaRobotPirate:, who suggested I bring the issue here. Pulsifier clearly does not care, and going by this message on my talk and this edit summary, he does not perceive me as someone “worthy” (as he put it) of being heeded when I undid his edits. I don’t know if it’s a topic ban or an all out block that needs doing but it’s clear there needs to be a final resolution here. Rusted AutoParts 17:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely. Pulsifier220 just came off a one-month block for disruption and jumped back in to making unsourced changes, including the addition of original research to articles, and when their edits are challenged their only response is to mash the revert button to restore their preferred version. They have not made a single edit to an article talk page. A precious unblock request demonstrates that their disregard for reliable sources and consensus hasn't improved since their last block. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jose34683

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Jose34683 has created an article, Hana Kimura. As a NPP member, I ran a copyvio report before approving the article, and found that the article was copied from [420]. I checked my watchlist today and found that that User:Jose34683 had undone the revision that added the speedy deletion tag, without any other change to the article content or a countering explanation. On the grounds that User:Jose34683 has made a large number of nonconstructive edits, I request that this user be blocked. Xevus11 (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: After looking through the user's talk page history, it appears as though they have a history of removing CSD tags, they seem to have done it three times before.

They passed 3RR on Hana Kimura. Vermont (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a common situation. That's what {{uw-speedy}} is for. Natureium (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

And they hit 4RR right before it was deleted. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you check to see if the text was copied from was copyrighted? Hint: No. Natureium (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it was copyrighted, just like Wikipedia is. The text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, so it's possible we could have used it, if they had complied with the licensing conditions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I put the warning on their talk page; they regularly blank it so I think they may have had previous cautions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No you did not, you put it on the talk page of article Jose34683 which does not exist - do you mean User:Jose34683 perhaps?  MPJ-DK  19:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoopse, yes I did. Xevus11 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry. Apologies on that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm in support of a block on this one. They do not seem willing to discuss or work on their issues, as evident by the non-response and also prior blocks for similar behavior. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Second. They've removed the warning. I see no attempt at communication. --Tarage (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I've applied a three day block. They can reconsider their actions over the weekend. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 07:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alec Smithson sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP 151.21.103.169 is a blatant sock of Alec Smithson. Would someone kindly block? Please note that I'm intentionally (a) not notifying and (b) not taking this to WP:SPI, in the hope that ... well, WP:BEANS. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Walsall Buses vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2A00:23C5:2282:D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

the IPs within the 2A00:23C5:2282:D00:0:0:0:0/64 range seems to be back again, defacing related articles once again with some sort of current buses list. can a second range block be re-implemented for a longer time for this range? thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You may want to post this here. Xevus11 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user ignoring warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

174.126.233.219 has been warned about disruptive editing several times in the past week and ignored them all. Please block. — Film Fan 10:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan:  Done - however in future please use WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 10:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jvm21 and socking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. This user was blocked last year for abusing multiple accounts. They're continuing to edit as 193.240.59.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This IP is located in Oldham, England. From their previous SPI log, they edited from an IP address in Rochdale, which is very close to Oldham. This IP is editing in the same areas of British motorsport and foreign films. I'd log a full SPI check, but this is a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Be grateful if someone could look at this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:  Done - agree it's DUCK. Blocked and tagged. GiantSnowman 10:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman - appreicate the quick turnaround. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Said user has been making many WP:TENDENTIOUS edits on the Rumi page (i.e. removing/tweaking long standing well-sourced content). I believe he just made a legal threat as well;[421]

I will contact.
1. My state senator/congressman to deal with Wiki as the Senate legislates how the websites function
2. I will contact ACLU to review you CC BY-SA license and GFDL.

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well TIL that the ACLU can have Wikipedia's GFDL license removed. And the Senate legislates how websites function. It's not a legal threat, however they are apparently here to "correct the facts". RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I initially blocked the user, but reverted it myself due to the comment above. Contacting the ACLU sounded to me like bringing lawyers into the matter, but I see Rick's point. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure it's a true legal threat, but I have questions if they are really here to edit constructively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• How 'bout just blocking him because he's an idiot? EEng 14:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I didn't block him for that, but I did review the edits and it's clear he is WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Proper judgement. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definitely WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No rights for women (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), given the username and the (short) edit history, I conclude we need user like this like we need a good, solid kick in the head. Kleuske (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as vandalism-only account (there is a small chance that this is WP:NOTTHERE in combination with WP:CIR, but this would not change the result).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protect List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The BTS fans are crazy as usual and spamming their stan crap on this article. There are over 20 ips trying to throw their nonsense onto it right now, months long protection would be good.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected for 3 weeks, if this continues after protection expires it must be protected for a longer duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

BTS is evil, alternative is life. (Sometimes it's the other way around; why, I don't know.) Drmies (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page discussion closings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are discussion closings at Talk:Sarah Jeong by non-administrators who are also active on the talk page and are, I think, showing excessive zeal in shutting off discussion. I don't necessarily disagree with the points raised by people seeking to initiate the stifled discussions, but hatting such discussions is disruptive when the grounds for doing so are shaky.

In closing this one, for instance, the closer shut off a discussion that was directly about the article on thin grounds. Yes, I agree that "other stuff exists" and I would not agree with the discussion initiator, but the grounds for hatting were, in my view, incorrect. This was a discussion of the article and not a general discussion of the subject matter. And closing a discussion because we don't allow "statements based on editors' thoughts or feelings" would result in closing most talk page discussions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM is exactly relevant: if editors want to complain about the subject of the article, they can go write a blog. If you want to help construct a neutral biographical encyclopedia article, you participate in the discussions and leave your personal opinions on the subject out of it. Jytdog rapidly shut down the discussion you linked to because it's not relevant to the topic but keeps being brought up by anonymous trolls. We're not here to entertain that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There's context needed here though. There's been a concerted effort to include specific information about Sarah Jeong on her page that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards as part of a protracted off-wiki campaign to get her fired. There are multiple talk threads further up and active where specific edits have been discussed and consensus reached, including several mentioning the handling of Roseanne Barr compared to Sarah Jeong. However the campaign has led to a steady influx of SPAs and IP editors who refuse to listen to the responses that have been provided regarding the interaction of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:TWITTER policy and who insist on creating new threads to rehash arguments reframed to their terms. - I know I've got some concern that the insertion of these frequent, forumy, posts on her talk page are an attempt to game the system - and so I've gotten a bit pointed about hatting repeated and forumy posts. I've also gone to user pages to suggest they search for active threads to participate to and make sure they are framing their discussion as explicit content requests [422] - and I know others on the page have as well. However we have a situation where editors who are not interested in building an encyclopedia are attempting to use talk to forward an agenda of creating a controversy to get a journalist fired which is morally galling even aside from the above cited policy issues (for those keeping score these include WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:TWITTER, WP:STICK, WP:IDHT, WP:GAME and WP:NOTHERE) so there's a preponderance of reasons to be a bit pointed here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There may very well be a concerted off-wiki effort. However, by closing discussions early you've shut off the ability of established editors to address the points that are being made. They are not all bogus. It is frustrating to want to participate in a discussion and see it chopped off the way these have been. Frustrating not just to the discussion initiator. If they are allowed to run a bit longer, I think that there might be a reduction in the amount of heat rather than an increase. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Except, as I just said, the only closed discussion threads with any substantive edit suggestion are duplicates of currently active conversations further up. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There's always some duplication in talk page discussions. Also I wanted to add that my perspective here is that of an editor who would like to participate in some of these discussions, such as the one I linked to, but can't because they are hatted. I have not personally experienced having a discussion I initiated being hatted here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Forking discussions from discussions already in progress is undesireable - it leads to situations where discussions on the same issues conflict with each other depending on who participates, or who has the energy to participate in both. Just participate in the ongoing discussion. If that closes but leaves you with an unresolved concern, then open a new discussion. I don't think the Roseanne discussion is the one you were referring to, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Roseanne is discussed in this current active thread and a few that were subsequently closed [423] Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Then the appropriate remedy in such situations is to point that out as a response, which was not done. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I discussed it here. The editor subsequently deleted my comment from their user talk page. [424] And this was done on the talk page right here [425] Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This speaks to the problem of the sheer volume of SPAs and IP editors we've been seeing here. So many new accounts are opening up so many new threads, and they aren't listening when they're directed to existing threads. There were at least three conversations where Roseanne Barr's tweets, and Wikipedia's handling of them, were discussed in detail. One was open. Another had been closed with a strong rationale for what had been decided. But new editors kept creating new threads to open the topic up again, and it's frustrating. Certainly agree with Ivanvector (talk · contribs) that increased admin patrols here would be a very good thing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I had in mind saying in the discussion, instead of hatting and lecturing the discussion initiator on how they're breaking the rules, something like "Duplicative, see XYZ section above." Yes more admin patrolling but please ease up on the hatting. It comes across as an effort to stifle discussion and there is no surer way of promoting oppositional behavior in the troll community, in my experience. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I must admit looking at the talk page history it looks a lot like an edit war. Some of the topics closed appear to be suggestions to add content with examples of text and sources. While some of the removes, closes, and hats are appropriate, perhaps the clerking of the article is starting to go to far. PackMecEng (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the clerking is a tad aggressive, but so is the trolling. Maybe some more active and interested admins can add the page to their patrols? I'm not really interested in this myself, I just removed one thread which was an overt BLP violation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• We lost a lot of editors over Gamergate, and in my view some of what happened in Wikipedia around that could perhaps have been mitigated if the editing community had a) moderated discussion much more carefully and b) required a higher level of sourcing from the beginning, and stuck with that (as a community we have a hard time sustaining things, sometimes). We are doing pretty well on both fronts in the Jeong article so far; DS were invoked early and one specific one was applied. Yes it can be jarring but it is better for everybody for the page to not turn into Reddit and remain rigorously focused on the work -- namely building content based on high quality RS and the policies and guidelines, and discussions on Talk about that also based on RS and P&G. Not anybody's unsourced opinions on things like whether Barr's tweets and Jeong's tweets are equivalent or not, as tempting as that may be. Please also see this now-archived thread about managing the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't gamergate and that is not your talk page to decide what gets closed or deleted on sight. Some of them are a problem and possibly a violation of WP:TPO. Just take it easy. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say this was Gamergate nor did I say that the page is my talk page, and I do not pretend that i have some all-powerful authoritay. Happy to take it easy. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct, perhaps I was being hyperbolic there. I also do not want to imply you are the only person. It has been a run on all fronts to that article since news broke. I am honestly a little surprised there is still news coverage on it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point re WP:TPO.Here discussions are not (usually) being collapsed, but terminated, which has the same effect. TPO says that the collapse templates "should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." I think this is a similar situation and the same restraint should apply. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• That talk page is definitely a mess with the discussions focusing on the same thing in multiple places. I've closed one but it would be helpful if other admins took a hand in cleaning it up a bit. --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• I think everybody would welcome greater admin oversight there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Involved parties need to avoid "moderating" article talk page discussions except under exceptional circumstances, such as BLP violations. Perhaps TPO should be clarified on that point. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• We are already aware of the situation on the talk page and have been monitoring it the whole time. Did you think we weren't? Did you think it was happening without our full support? The efforts we're seeing to defame her in her BLP are extremely aggressive and thus frivolous talk page conduct is treated with extreme prejudice. I'm not seeing any improper closures. The diff you provide as an example of the problem is actually a perfect example of something that should be closed—it's just another thinly veiled attempt to portray the article subject as a racist. We're seeing such attempts in droves, and whether they're organized or simply driven by outrage, they're not coming from a good faith NPOV and are absolutely not going to be tolerated on a BLP where discretionary page restrictions are actively in use. Non-admins who are clerking the talk page are currently that article's saving grace and are doing our work for us, so that we don't need to take more extreme measures such as talk page protection, discretionary page bans, and blocks. There are a multitude of admins monitoring the page just waiting to step in if needed, but for now the situation is under control because of the users you're here to complain about. Should you have specific evidence that good faith, non-duplicate consensus-building measures are being improperly closed, you may re-report, but short of that this complaint is not going anywhere and we are certainly not going to withdraw our support for this clerking on principle alone. Closing this. Swarm ♠ 17:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extend Article ECP, Semi-Protect Talk Page

I think that it is in order to extend the extended-confirmed protection of the article, about to expire, for another two weeks, and to semi-protect the talk page. I am aware that semi-protection of a talk page is unusual, but is not known when there has been systematic or coordinated disruptive editing by unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm actually just going to implement ECP as a discretionary sanction for six months. Not sure if talk page semi is necessary. Swarm ♠ 17:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  I just extended ECP for 2 weeks, but 6 months seems entirely reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  This is a case where I would have endorsed indefinite ECP until it can be demonstrated that protection is no longer required, and I'm also not opposed to semiprotecting the talk page for some time. There's clearly very likely brigading going on here, and as such an exceptional response is warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've just been going through the talk page history and I definitely agree. I don't think there's any chance the article will benefit from non-autoconfirmed participation in the near future. I also think it should be logged as an arbitration enforcement measure. What period of time do you think would be appropriate? Swarm ♠ 17:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

TBH the longest I've ever seen a talk page protected was 12 hours. I'm just seeing how far back this goes in another tab, I've clicked "older 500" quite a few times now and I'm still only back a week. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah, Abecedare, Ian.thomson, and GorillaWarfare: you've all revdeleted multiple serious BLP violations from the talk page since just the start of this month. Do you have any input here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it's generally not appropriate to protect an article's talk page at all. However, I think it would be justifiable to protect for an extended period as an AE measure due to the fact that this is a BLP that is under attack. This is why the BLP discretionary sanctions exist, after all. I would personally be inclined to semi-protect the talk page for a month, and then reassess the situation after that. Swarm ♠ 17:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would prefer the talkpage be kept open to IP editors and that we patrol it "aggressively" to keep out BLP vios, and keep tone and redundancy within control. But if semi-protection is thought to be a better utilization of editor and admin resources, I have no objection to that either. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking back over the past few days/weeks of edits, there hasn't really been a lot of disruption from obvious IP trolls. There's some, but it has mostly been dealt with through "aggressive" clerking by admins and non-admins, as well as an occasional block. That does seem to be the way to go for the time being. The issue of threads being rehashed seems to be coming from [auto]confirmed editors as much as anyone, and semi won't address that. If disruption picks up then a request to WP:RFPP referring to this discussion (closer: please provide a permalink) ought to take care of it quickly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen talk pages that had long semi-protection, but those were invariably longtime sock targets. That's not what we have here; the way this talk page has gotten out of hand is new to me, at least the extent is. I don't support protection for now; I do support strict hatting, preferably accompanied by "already discussed, see [[Talk:Sarah Yeong#...]]" and preferably by admins (cabal members or not). Drmies (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies and Abecedare. Talk pages should only be protected as a last resort, and I think that given the fairly manageable volume of serious BLP issues and the number of eyes on that page, we can probably get away with aggressive hatting, redaction, and revision-deletion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

We could always put big-red-honking alerts on the Talk page announcing that we're done tolerating the campaigns much the same way that Talk:Douchebag was addressed. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't drag Trump into everything. EEng 11:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

I added an editnotice to the talk page, modified from {{not a forum}}. Maybe it will help. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Uer:Agricolae and CHEESE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. Agricolae (talk · contribs) is waging a warrior attitude at the newly created Denny (hybrid hominin) article. He keeps tagging the article for lack of notability: [426], [427], [428]. I tried to reason with him, but unfortunately, his reaction is in the modality of WP:CHEESE and WP:LISTEN ( seeTalk:Denny (hybrid hominin)#Notability). I would rather be creating and expanding articles now, so spending more time dealing with this disruption is not an attractive option. I believe that fellow Wikipedia editors Drbogdan (talk · contribs), PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs) also have advanced degrees in biological sciences, and they made it known that the hybrid Neanderthal girl (fossil) is notable. The research is peer reviewed, published, and welcomed by experts in the field. The event has also been reported extensively by very reliable news media, so I have no doubt of the notability. Your support will be enormously appreciated. Thank you for your time. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Mostly amateur interest in my case (college level biology only, my field is computer science). I commented at the article's talk page (I don't personally see a problem with the tag as long as a discussion about it is ongoing). I'll let others determine if Agricolae is being overzealous about it though. —PaleoNeonate – 21:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so now we are whipping down our pants to see who has the better degree? Which of us has sequenced more genomic DNA? You might want to pause and consider the possibility that your accusation of WP:CHEESE could just possibly be based on a flawed central assumption, that the reason I am disagreeing with you is not because I am just ignorant of the scientific process, as you intimated in an edit summary. I am still looking for a reason this should not go to AfD as WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS (how can you assess sustained coverage after two days?), and all you give me are not-all-that-comparable analogies and WP:CRYSTAL predictions supported by that most persuasive of arguments, "trust me". Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Because WP:Competence is required. Scientific notability happens in a different context than a for a Golden Globe contestant or a music hit. Your demand of proof for a "continued popularity" in the long future is ignorant of the scientific method, and of the wide context in which evolutionary theory is built upon. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - I'm the OA of the "Denny (hybrid hominin)" article - and have added edits to the article (although perhaps not as much as the excellent efforts (imo) of User:Rowan Forest) - according to Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline => "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - AFAIK - This seems sufficient for notability for this article - at least at the moment, and for starters - sustained coverage may be more apparent (and relevant) at some later time - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BrandonXLF

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

BrandonXLF is making a lot of untested edits to templates, and has not responded to several concerns on his talk page about these edits. The edits also don't have edit summaries, so I'm unclear what their intent is. This seems disruptive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what to reply to on my talk page as they are all notices and statements and not really questions, I've tested the edits in my sandboxes and they worked there. —  BrandonXLF   ^{(t@lk) (ping back)} 20:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of sandbox testing, fairly major changes were made to templates including {{Current hour offset in time zone}} and {{Offset}}, after which the templates stopped working. It is generally expected that editors working on templates revert such changes when they discover the changes do not function as planned. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you take the advice (and warnings) given to you on your talk page, namely Please slow down and obtain consensus before making edits to highly-used templates. - TNT ^💖 20:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: Could you explain why you blanked Template:Offset in this edit? If you wanted to change the name of the template, then the procedure at Wikipedia:Moving a page should have been followed instead of doing a "cut-and-paste" move. If you wanted to delete the template or merge it with another template, then the template should be nominated to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Page blanking is almost never the right solution. Furthermore, as a template that is transcluded on at least 200 pages, wouldn't blanking the template break the pages that depend on it? And according to the page history, it doesn't really look like you sandboxed your changes. Here is a diff of a change that got pushed to the main template page and produced a visible "error" message. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: When I Relocated it to timestamp I was careful not to break any pages using it. At that time it was used by only a few pages. —  BrandonXLF   ^{(t@lk) (ping back)} 21:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

How about cleaning up the issue I mentioned on your talk and at VPT? I don't want to take the time to dive into another set of templates and work out what changes have been made and why errors are occurring. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of the issue mentioned by Johnuniq above, BrandonXLF has also performed several non-discussed changes on User:Thayts/Userboxes/DST in user time zone, which is also transcluded on at least 200 pages. His edits has created numerous red error messages (Error: Invalid time) across various user pages that have included such userbox. He was first warned on 19 August by Johnuniq, the userbox was then reverted to last good revision by me after a period of time without any cleanups from the editor, with a recommendation to check his edits left on his talk page. On 20 August, he ignored all questions and notices left on his talk page, and proceeded to make undiscussed changes to the userbox again. After another revert and leaving a warning message on his talk page again, he made changes to other templates such as {{Offset}}. I recommend that you obtain consensus, sandbox all test before performing all changes, and answer the messages left by other users. But please, can you explain why you have removed large amount of codes from here and have not cleaned up the issue after being notified about the issues? –Wefk423 (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

BrandonXLF also needs to read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and in particular, the section about not editing other peoples' comments. [429] 31.49.219.1 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Just some comments after my notes on BrandonXLF's talk page. My biggest concern was and still is that I have no idea what the editor is trying to achieve with their edits. There are only a few reasons to edit established templates; to fix bugs, to add needed/useful functionality, or as part of usually a wider effort to rationalise templates by e.g. standardising the way they work. Which is being done is often obvious from the edits; if not it should be made explicit in edit summaries and in comments on talk pages. But these edits seem to serve none of these purposes, the editor has not made it clear what they are trying to achieve. All they seem to be doing is changing things for change sake, repeatedly breaking things along the way as they clearly do not understand how these templates all link together. Some of the problems have been fixed but there are still a handful of user pages recently added to Category:Pages with script errors with errors in time templates.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC) – an update: I think I’ve fixed the remaining problems caused by a broken module.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

BrandonXLF has been playing around and trying to make changes to time based templates, get them to auto update etc, for over 10 months now. A lot of disruption has been caused over this time as shown above, and all the way back. He was asked to stop back last year and it was pointed out that MediaWiki doesn't work the way they want it to work. I think it's time to drop the stick and move on and they're fixated in trying to get an accurate local time now in articles. Considering the continued disruption in this space I'd move to prohibit them from editing in the space of times and templates and it seems that there is a potential CIR issue with this user. Canterbury Tail talk 17:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that since opening the ANI thread resulted in an immediate stop to the disruptive template editing, we would be fine with just cautioning BrandonXLF to obtain consensus before making potentially breaking changes, to revert their edits when problems appear, to take talk page notices seriously, and to always use edit summaries when making nontrivial edits - and probably also to be very cautious when working with widely-used time-related templates. We can always open another discussion here if the disruption persists. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note The response here clearly calls for a fairly restrained response, so I have sent BrandonXLF a message to follow up to the sentiments expressed here and indicate that he is willing to take the advice, as I don't see him having made any effort to actually resolve the complaint on his end. So far he has not done so in spite of logging in and making edits since my message was sent. I will continue to give him more time to respond, but if he continues to ignore this thread I'm going to block him from editing until he addresses his behavior. Swarm ♠ 19:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've look at the comments. I'll try to be more careful next time I make an edit. ([430]) What really disappointed me is that he claims that he has "read" the comments and "tries" to be careful, yet have not planned to address any of his confusing edits here in this thread. BrandonXLF makes me feel that he does not want to communicate with us at all. –Wefk423 (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that most of the edits breaking pages have been undone so there's no much to do. I couldn't find any pages that still need fixing. I do plan to try to improve my edits then re-implement them (after more testing and consensus). So far the idea I have may take time to make in the sandbox and I still need to figure out how to approach it. —  BrandonXLF   ^{(t@lk) (ping back)} 00:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

BrandonXLF, while you're doing that I'll point out Category:Wikipedians willing to assist with templates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates, which are two helpful resources if you want to ask any questions about templates.

I also noticed you were using the testcases pages, and I'll also point out the list of templates at WP:TESTCASE#Automatic formatting, which are invaluable for creating lists of test cases that are tedious to do by hand. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll consider using those. —  BrandonXLF   ^{(t@lk) (ping back)} 12:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kevin169nyc making association football players "American" against guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kevin169nyc (talk · contribs) has been changing player nationalities without explanation. The guidelines as defined by WP:FOOTY are that a player's nationality should reflect their nation of birth until they are capped by another nation. This is problematic with players who hold dual citizenship as is the case with the players Kevin169nyc has been editing. MLS, and leagues in other nations, have a quota for "national" players. For reasons they created to improve the game for locals, they require the majority of the team to be "local" and limit "foreign" players. This causes strange rules such has considering players who have naturalized as "local" players. I have tried to explain this to the editor, but they are past four warnings and discussion is not helping. Not sure how to get this through to Kevin169nyc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, let me remind you that policy sternly prohibits making "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Don't clog up this board with personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This was not a personal attack Nyttend, it's a complaint and viewing Kevin169nyc (talk · contribs)'s edit history and talk page are enough to support my claims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Kevin169nyc (talk · contribs) has been changing player nationalities without explanation. [431][432][433][434][435][436][437] and others can be seen in the editor's edit history. The guidelines as defined by WP:FOOTY are that a player's nationality should reflect their nation of birth until they are capped by another nation. Details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Nationality#Nationality to indicate. This is problematic with players who hold dual citizenship as is the case with the players Kevin169nyc has been editing. MLS, and leagues in other nations, have a quota for "national" players. For reasons they created to improve the game for locals, they require the majority of the team to be "local" and limit "foreign" players. This causes strange rules such has considering players who have naturalized as "local" players. I have tried to explain this to the editor, (see the editor's talk page) but they are past four warnings and discussion is not helping. Not sure how to get this through to Kevin169nyc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, your statement reads as a personal attack, while Walter Görlitz's doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack.--Auric talk 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Without going into too much detail, I just spent some time picking at those diffs randomly - if someone is a US national/citizen, playing for a team in the US, and has lived in the US since they were an infant, it is inappropriate to use a local wikiproject guideline to state their nationality is something different. Where they are dual-citizens, both should be listed unless the reliable sources state otherwise. A person's nationality is not fluid based who has capped them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

If a football player has a double nationality and if there are sources stating this, this should be written in the article, either in the lede or in the bio section. This is not what the user was doing. However, an associate football player has also the "football" nationality, the one they are using e.g.to be eligible to play for a certain national team (and which can not be changed once it has been chosen), or which is used to comply with the limits on a number of foreign players. This is the "nationality" listed in the tables. Tables can not support two nationalities. Changing it, in particular, changing it without sources, is disruptive.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Walter Görlitz is right, all of the diffs he presented are incorrect, and indeed most of the editor's edits are bad like that. This editor is new and has gotten off to a very bad start. It's not like the guideline is unclear or unreasonable, it's simply common sense. I don't know what the editor's problem is, but he has had 7 warnings in 12 days and has still not improved. So something needs to happen -- a block or a topic ban from football, if he does not come here and reform. His disruptive edits are inaccurate and damaging to the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Further comment: even if the guideline is unclear, I did leave a comment on the editor's talk page to discuss it on the FOOTY project's talk page. I did that so the editor could get input from a source who was not me. That advice was not followed. I won't assume why, but I would willing to have a discussion to be told why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correctly re-blocking me, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was blocked under false accusations. I could prove those claims to be wrong: the admin who blocked me agreed that the accusation against me was a falsehood. I asked to be unblocked, which was denied without further explanation - except agreeing that the reason to block me was wrong; and he blocked my discussion page with the same argument on which he just seconds before had disagreed. I can't find the log for my 1 day ban, so I can't proof that part.

I know that you won't delete the log. But could you at least please delete the accusations that (as you can see above) are falsehoods? And replace it with something else? Please? I don't know what "else" should be: maybe "admin disagreeing with your count of votes" or "evaluation with mistakes of a discussion into polls". Or get up with something. But being blocked with twice (universal and on the discussion page) on basis of something everyone agreed on were false claims is not really fair - in my humble opinion.

And look at it this way: if you actually come with an argument which Wikipedia rules I actually have violated, it will be more likely that I won't do the mistake again. Thanks in advance.

PS! Could an admin please reinstate this part on the talk page? The removal was against Wikipedia talk page guidelines. Please feel free to update and edit the evaluation of the polls. As far as I know I counted the votes correctly - if not, please update it, write to the users and ask them where they want to be placed or take a discussion on the talk page.

Kind regards --APS^talk 23:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know I counted the votes correctly

Guy, that you falsified someone else's opinion was explicitly given -- in the link you provided -- as a reason for your remaining blocked. Asking for it to be reinstated takes some nerve. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The block was for disruptive editing. That edit was the last straw, not the first one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support block - It took a bit to figure out what the heck was going on, but the block was good, even if the initial description of the reason for the block was in error. I can't fault SoV for not seeing through that tangle immediately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment your signature very much resembles that of GreenMeansGo, who appears to have been using it first (a diff of his from December 2017 includes it, while a diff of yours from January 2018 does not). You possibly should change your signature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Agreed. While it's fine taking inspiration from other users, copying it to the point where it looks like it belongs to the same person is troublesome and implies a connection that is not there. Nihlus 04:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery I guess? GMG^talk 06:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse spirit of the block Ascribing neutral to Sandstein's comment, which actually opposed the addition to the article, is disruptive. Yes, SoV mucked up the block description but this does not excuse the disruption. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

OMG: I DO NOT ASK TO BE UNBLOCKED: I AM UNBLOCKED AGAIN, so please stop arguing about that here, since this explicit wasn't my intention. I KNOW THAT YOU NEVER WON'T AGREE THAT YOU DO ABUSE YOUR POWER. THE ONLY THING I WANT IS YOU TO CORRECT YOUR TOTALLY WRONG DESCRIPTION OF WHY I WAS BLOCKED. IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND!?--APS^talk 10:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• PS: I DID PUT SANDSTEIN IN THE NEUTRAL SECTION BECAUSE HE SAID THAT HE DIDN'T THINK IT SHOULD BE IN THE LEAD SECTION. HE DIDN'T SAY THAT HE DOESN'T WANT THE INFORMATION IN ARTICLE T ALL. THEREFORE. OF COURSE YOU MAY DISAGREE ON THAT - BUT YOU BLOCK PEOPLE WITH BULLSHIT CLAIMS AND DO NOT EVEN CORRECT THE LOG EVEN THOUGH ALL OF YOU AGREE THAT WHAT YOU DID WAS WRONG. YOU COULD OF COURSE JUST HAVE TAKEN THE ARGUMENT WITH ME ON THE TALK PAGE OR JUST ASKED SANDSTEIN - THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM. BUT IT IS EASIER TO ABUSE YOUR POWER AND BLOCK PEOPLE WITH FALSE ACCUSATIONS.--APS^talk 10:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Albin Schmitt: The process for "log correction" was explained to you on your talk page. I wouldn't pursue that course but it's available if you want. In any event, you're not accomplishing anything by getting worked up over what is in the past. Tiderolls 13:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, SHOUTING, that always works... oh, wait. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If the user isn't currently blocked, I'd certainly support a block under either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. Starting an ANI thread about oneself to complain about one's block and posting in all caps in that thread certainly does imply a certain attitude that is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support reblocking as a waste of community resources. I've been blocked erroneously too, but at least I was civil about it... --Tarage (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• I really don't think that's called for, as long as the editor DROPSTHESTICK and stops shouting. I assume that will come about with the passage of some time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• They didn't. [439]"General note: Harassment of other users" for this post[440] and [441]"General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor" for this post[442]. I see no harassment or personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just a small correction to Doug Weller's comment. I posted the second link above after their unwarranted templating of me, which I assume was in response to this comment of mine on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit-warring and personal attacks by User:Zaydbinumar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user keeps adding honoric prefix "His Excellency" on Imran Khan despite WP:HONORIFIC advocating against it and despite it not being WP:NPOV and despite it not adding any encyclopedic value for the reader. I tried to reason with him at Talk:Imran Khan/Archives/2018/August#Honorific prefix, I countered personal attacks and then when we were still discussing, he restores the honoric prefix stating in the summary line Nobody wants to discuss this on the talk page. The user who's been reverting my edits just reverts them just because of his own views.. At this point, I do not have any other option but just to report him for his disruptive behavior. User has been blocked for socking previously, his most edits and the language is subpar to the level that we cannot see him adding any significant value to the project. The only thing he is doing is restoring honoric prefix every day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The user seems to have stopped edit-warring and to have engaged into the talk page discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: He never came back after I filed this report which means if we closed this without taking any action then he will come back and resume his disruption. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, this probably means they want to stay under the radar. I would say we can close it now, and if disruption resumes they should be block without much of a further discussion. We can not keep this open forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Farang Rak Tham calling users "gestapo"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Here.

Months ago, I left a user the standard template about discretionary sanctions after they asked about them, after editing in an area where the sanctions apply. I eventually explained that the notification is not a sanction, that he's free to remove the template, etc... Ronz then asked that user if there was any way he could clarify things for him.

Now, after all this time Farang Rak Tham decided to call me and Ronz Nazis because of all that.

I warned him to strike it. He refused. If I was not involved, I would have gone ahead and blocked him. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ya know, you could just let some things go. EEng 22:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate WP:NPA at WP:MFD then. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Like, I'm not reporting something from a year ago that requires a particular misinterpretation. I'm reporting a user who just now called two users gestapo, without provocation, for politely explaining something to another user months ago. If NPA doesn't apply here, then where does it apply? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

hi Ian, I have full sympathy with you here. His choice of words were despicable and he deserves to be warned for not being Civil . but a block is uncalled for this. To be fair, he rather chose his statement diplomatically and said what sometimes seems to like an anti-quack gestapo. So although he did use the word but he did stop before the line and did not actually call you Gestapo. So maybe just forgive him here. Cheers. Sometimes I really miss Etiquette Noticeboard. Sigh. --DBigXrayᗙ

Exactly. He referred to what sometimes seems to like an anti-quack gestapo (probably meaning "sometimes seems to me like..."). I guess it probably violates NPA. It's certainly not nice. But really. Must everynasty thing someone says, once, be struck? Does everything have to be an ANI thread? Can't you just warn him and let it go for now? Jesus. It's Saturday night. Go enjoy yourself. EEng 23:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh Ian. Ease up a bit mate. Sure, he referred to gestapo but then you subsequently referred to "insane" and an "insult to dharmic religion". I don't think he was labelling you the gestapo and I don't think you were labelling him insane or a insult to dharmic religion. Time to move on. Moriori (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to make of it. It's similar to this confusing attack regarding this discussion on my breakdown and questions about a complicated edit. It seems to be completely removed with the actual situation. I just ignore it. If this is an ongoing problem with others, then maybe a block would help. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block for Special:Contributions/2601:206:4001:7CEA:0:0:0:0/48?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would it be possible for an admin assess whether it would be appropriate make a range block of 2601:206:4001:7CEA:0:0:0:0/48? A person in this range is repeatedly vandalizing articles dealing with theme parks, particularly Disney theme parks (doing things like falsely stating that attractions that have been closed for years are still open [443] (or vice versa [444]); messing with dates and other parameters within article infoboxes [445][446][447]; or just adding nonsensical phrases randomly into articles [448]), and the abuse has been ongoing for many months. Most recent IPs used (from what I can tell) are:

• 2601:206:4001:7CEA:A5FA:5AAB:5C9E:9351 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:206:4001:7CEA:C24:35E1:D278:1537 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:206:4001:7CEA:29A2:E2B5:7EB5:C76E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:206:4001:7CEA:7D2D:7164:57A3:D84F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:206:4001:7CEA:B04A:8DF5:A9F:A48F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Browsing through the range, it doesn't appear that many other users (if any) would be impacted; all edits during the last two weeks from this range have been from this user. However, that said, I don't have much experience with range blocks, so I will defer to someone better versed in such things. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/2601:206:4001:7CEA:0:0:0:0/64, which seems to cover all of the addresses the vandal has been using. If it doesn't prove to be broad enough, it could be expanded to /48 or something more. Note that if it's as broad as /32, there will be collateral damage. I'm seeing IPs on /32 that are engaged in what appears to be good faith edits completely unrelated to Disney. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI user exhibiting ownership of article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So this SPA Balochworld (talk · contribs) from the day first has been writing this BLP (Nabil Gabol) in a promotional and biased manner using unreliable sources. I fixed this BLP earlier this month to remove all the poorly sourced information, but this SPA for the past couple of days has been trying to revert the BLP back to his own version which is poorly sourced and promotional. This user has been exhibiting WP:OWNership of the BLP by insisting on reverting it to his version. I was suggested here by DBigXray to engage this SPA for a discussion on the article's talk page which I did here but still insists on reverting to his version and apparently not going to discuss the issue in a civil manner. Instead the user is mocking me saying I've have no basic understanding of the field, that I'm not a suitable user to contribute this BLP, and that I should get a life and a real job. The user is also repeatedly accusing me for being a biased editor - both in the edit summaries, and on my talk page using IP addresses. --Saqib (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Noting that admin Black Kite Fully protected the article today due to absence of any article Talk page engagement by either side of this content dispute until then. After the lock, the Parties have now started the discussion. Both sides are indulging in border line incivility. I suggest to kindly continue the WP:CIVIL discussion without indulging in any sort of ad hominem (including calling him a SPA). Content dispute can then be taken to WP:RSN for source related discussion and other forms of WP:DR.

Balochworld warned by Black Kite to continue engaging in civil discussion.

As of now this is clearly a content dispute and At this stage, I do not believe any further admin action is needed here. Saqib do you have any further request ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a clear case of article ownership, not merely a contest dispute issue. Since a warning has been issued, I'm fine with closing this discussion. --Saqib (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Saqib it may be as you say, but for the sake of the article improvement by WP:CONSENSUS, lets WP:AGF and continue the talk page discussion, even though the article is currently "Fully protected" for a month with the "version you supported". Once the dispute on content and sources is settled you may request for reduction of page protection. Appreciate your cool head in dealing with him. cheers.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I am a victim of cyber bullying here. The article was stable for 10 years until 19th June when Saqib completely transformed it to his personal liking. Please review the version as of 19th June by another editor (not me). Since then Saqib deleted two entire categories and maliciously placed new but incomplete facts that are framing the subject individual negatively. I tried to be collaborative and improve on Saqibs version with references but Saqib is bullied me and completely reverted it back to his version without exception. He somehow feels that he is the final authority and is influencing the article with hi biased view. My suggestion is use the 19th June version as a starting point and improve from there. Thanks -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochworld (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: Accusing editors who are trying to point out Wikipedia's policies and guidelines of "cyberbullying" pretty much makes me, an admin who could potentially review the concerns raised in this thread, discount everything you say as hyperbole. This is a victim of cyberbullying. Also, this edit summary, by you, is a personal attack. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new Wikispeak term, hyperbullying (or maybe hyperbollying). EEng 19:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Balochworld, Thanks for your comment here. Saqib should have informed you on your talk page about this discussion but it seems he did not. Anyway, Please understand that wikipedia policies are applied equally to all the editors new or old, weak or powerful. You may be right about the content in question, May be your sources are reliable sources as well, but please understand that this page is not the right venue to discuss the content of the Article (Nabil Gabol). The correct place to do that is Talk:Nabil Gabol. so please continue your discussion about the content of the article and sources on the talk page. Understand that nobody WP:OWNS an article, and "any" editor at any point of time (doesn't matter 1 day or 10 years), can change the article to his liking as long as he is following the policies of WP:BLP and WP:V, if that editor does something wrong or unacceptable in the process, other editors like you can raise objections on the talk page and get the mistake rectified. Please see WP:CONSENSUS to understand how you can improve the article with discussion. And then follow the Dispute resolution process

This page known as Administrators noticeboard is not to discuss an article, this page is only to seek admin help to deal with issues from an Editor. There was a lack of WP:CIVIL comments from you towards Saqib (and I can see from his side as well) and for which an admin Black Kite also warned you. Please note that wikipedia has a strict policy of no personal attacks WP:NPA, so please do not resort to any kind of name calling. As discussed above, I believe that you have understood the reason for starting this thread, which as UNCIVIL behavior and WP:IDHT. Please continue the civil discussion at the talk page and try to get a Consensus --DBigXrayᗙ 19:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all senior editors. I am honestly trying to raise a genuine issue. I tried to be collaborative and whatever changes I made to the article I did so with reference. Why I used the tern cyber bullying is that Saqib would without discussion revert any and all changes I would make. He changed the entire article that was collaboratively made by several editors over a period of 10 years. He somehow feels that he is the final authority on the subjected individual and has a no compromise attitude. You can check the talk page of the article now and see that I have pointed out all my concerns. Hope you all will help. Thanks. Balochworld (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Balochworld, I am not doubting your honest intentions here. Even the other editors are only pointing to you that your name calling is not justified, so don't resort to it. You are right when you say that there were reverts without discussion, i.e. an WP:EDITWAR had happened between you and Saqib. But you have to understand that the "only way" to solve such a situation is not here on this page but to go and discuss each of your edits and reference/sources on the talk page. Discuss and understand why you and the other editor have an objection and then resolve it amicably. Please read  Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and understand that you cannot prevent an article development merely by supporting a WP:STATUSQUO there has to be justification. Now May I request you to state your specific problems and disagreements on the Talk:Nabil Gabol page and resolve this content dispute there. Please read all the links That I have added here so that you understand how to proceed with WP:DR without getting blocked again. thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment After seeing this discussion, I decided to check out the article history and I can say that Saqib has done a very good job with the article. He has improved the article from poorly sourced POV mess to a reliably sourced NPOV article. Going back to Balochworld's version would be a disaster. I also see that Balochworld claimed in an edit summary that they are the original author and no one should change the article, this is a display of ownership. Furthermore, they were reverted by several editors in addition to Saqib and they are unwilling to accept the editorial concensus against them and I do not see them starting to listen to the reason in near future. I do not think they are here to develop encyclopedia but rather their goal is to promote that one individual i.e. Nabil Gabol. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adamstom.97 and article ownership at Ant-Man and the Wasp

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Adamstom.97 seems to do a lot of good work for the project, but he's steering very clearly into WP:OWNy behavior at Ant-Man and the Wasp. Despite my efforts at dispute resolution, he reverts all changes to the plot section and refuses to discuss proposed changes.

A quick survey of his plot edits of nearly the past two months shows that he is constantly reverting changes to the plot so that it has remained almost exactly the same. Even his specific reverting behavior exhibits this problematic attitude; some of his reverts have justifications in the edit summary [449], [450], [451], [452], [453], [454], but many do not: [455], [456], [457], [458], [459], [460], [461], [462], [463], [464]. Reverting good-faith changes without providing sufficient edit summaries (pointing to policies, discussions, etc.), especially after being asked for a rationale demonstrates an attitude of article ownership.

I noticed this with my own efforts to make improvements to the plot summary. He first justified his reverts by saying "You can't just show up and completely change the plot summary." Claiming the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article (in defiance of WP:BRD) is an indicator of article ownership.

Even within this framework where editors propose changes for his approval, Adamstom.97 has doggedly refused to comment on the actual content of my edits. He first claimed that they were qualitatively identical to what was there before (calling them "change for change's sake"). When I pointed out specific areas I felt were improvements, including obvious grammatical fixes, he ignored my argument and again said that my changes were "changes you made for changes' sake." Prompted by a dispute resolution volunteer, I even made a long breakdown justifying my edits and, rather than engage with my justifications, he explicitly refused to respond to them and told me "you just have to get over it."

I should note that I have attempted to address this problematic behavior at WP:AN3, where he received sanctions for edit warring. I also sought help from WP:DRN, but this quickly fizzled out when Adamstom.97 flat out refused to address my justifications (in the "get over it" post linked to above) or, in the euphemistic words of the closing volunteer, "discussion is not happening").

This is a problematic approach to editing and engaging with other editors. I don't know what the best course of action is here, but throughout this he has gotten repeated reminders of how he should be approaching the process and nothing has been sticking. It's starting to get frustrating. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you've spelled out your reasoning for your changes on the talk page. Adamstom.97 has not made any reversions to the article since you have done so, nor has he responded with any feedback on the changes. Give him some time (over the weekend, perhaps) to respond on the talk page, and if he fails to do so, implement your changes. Thank you, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I know there is a lot to look at, but your assessment is not in keeping with what I've presented. When I shared a brief justification for my edits to show that they weren't just "changes for changes' sake", he ignored most of what I'd said to reiterate that they were just changes for changes' sake. When I provided a more detailed justification, he posted to say that he would not be responding to them. It's been weeks since I first laid out my justifications, not days.

Also, to say that he hasn't made any reversions to the article since my justifications is not only misleading (since it would be a token of edit warring to insist on my version when I know there would be opposition), but also incorrect. Adamstom.97 couldn't even keep from editing the article during dispute resolution when he was asked not to by the volunteer moderating our dispute. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We were both asked not to edit the page, and you are the one who changed it from the WP:STATUSQUO to your own version first. You also said "feel free to revert". - adamstom97 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that. But Caknuck said that you haven't made any reversions to the article since I outlined my justifications, as if you had not been given a chance to change. That is incorrect. Your revert shows you still oppose the edits; your willingness to revert combined with your refusal to discuss the justifications is the problem, not the revert itself. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Like most of the long-time editors I know who have film or TV articles on their watchlist, much of my time is spent reverting poor changes to articles made by overzealous or misguided IPs or new users. Are my edit summaries perfect? No, but that is something I am working on and have taken steps to rectify recently. Have I fallen afowl of 3RR a few times? Yes, as have many others who were not actively edit warring but just got caught up in trying to restore a popular article (or article on a popular subject) to before it was poorly changed. In all the years I have been editing film and TV articles this has always been the way out of necessity, and on the rare occasions that issues arise from this approach they have been, eventually, sorted out in good faith. Have a look at the page history of any of the other Marvel films, for example, and you will see a small group of editors diligently reverting all the poor edits that get made to these pages every day. It's just how it has to work.

I find it suspicious that you have decided to create this report immediately after a content dispute did not turn out how you would have liked, not allowing reasonable discussion at the talk page to play out and continuing the lie that I have not been explaining myself or that I think I need to approve any changes to the article. Just nonsense, invented in an attempt to help your case. And to be clear, since you have taken my words out of context to twist them, I did not tell you to "get over it", I said that you may have to get over it if you could not prove that the changes should be made because you can't just go around changing things to how you want them, against consensus. No amount of WP:HOUNDING and report writing is going to change the fact that a consensus version of the plot summary was formed by multiple editors and you have yet to prove on the talk page why it should be changed to yours. If anyone is displaying WP:OWNy behaviour, then it is the editor who thinks that they should not have to follow an established consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there actually a consensus, or just the changes you haven't reverted? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring your snarky and unhelpful attitude, there is indeed consensus as the majority of the summary was formed from the work of multiple editors over several weeks (and thus carries WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS) with some discussion on the talk page for specific issues (one in particular, the film's post-credits scene) that resulted in explicit consensus there. The only changes since have been to resolve specific issues raised by different editors, until this mess began. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with implicit consensus (though calling this "clear" consensus is problematic), but so far Adamstom.97 has treated implicit consensus as something sacred that can't change. Attempts to change it are stonewalled.

In response to charges of lying and wikihounding, please provide diffs. You won't convince anyone of your claims without evidence. I would hope that your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy would not prevent you from recognizing that, when one misbehaves and doesn't stop the bad behavior, reporting them a second time is not hounding.

By the way, the dispute resolution didn't come to an agreement that I disagreed with. It came to an impasse because you failed to follow the rules that the dispute resolution volunteer laid out and refused to actually respond to my justifications. I've already provided the diffs for this. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You have provided that evidence yourself, as your behaviour can be seen alongside mine in the discussions linked to from here. Also, at the start of this very discussion is a whole passage from you about how I think I must approve edits to the page, which is just ridiculous. What is also ridiculous was the amount of stuff you wanted me to wade through and respond to; see WP:WALLOFTEXT. We are all volunteers here, giving up our free time to improve these articles, and I would rather spend my time actually making improvements and discussing issues with constructive editors than argue who has a better writing style with an editor who does not understand how consensus works. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I am honestly appalled that Adamstom.97 has never been sanctioned or even warned about his disruptive edit-warring, article-ownership, uncivil behaviour, personal attacks, bad content edits and so on, and I think it's one of the biggest blots on ANI that it has been unable to deal with him thusfar. I don't think anything will come from this thread because he's also a master of the ANI filibuster, but that doesn't mean that nothing should. My two cents. Don't ping me, because I really don't want anything more to do with this (to the point that I've been basically avoiding editing articles on my favourite film series for months now). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like Adamstom.97 has received a number of sanctions for edit warring, including a temporary topic ban (September 2014), , a warning and page protection (September 2017), and a temporary article ban (August 2018). There are also a number of user talk page warnings (November 2014, December 2014, January 2015, December 2017). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never said that I was perfect, but the insinuations you are now making are just nonsense. For the record, the above "sanctions" that you are referring to are instances where (a) another user was completely in the wrong and was blocked for it, (b) I never did anything wrong and was actually the victim of abuse at the hands of an editor who eventually drove me off Wikipedia for a substantial amount of time, and (c) there was a major misunderstanding that led to me losing rollbacker rights and learning a big lesson. Your links there have also reminded me that this is now the second time you have reported me to ANI for apparently demanding that you ask my permission before changing an article. The fact that you still think this is a real thing bewilders me.

Do I get into a lot of content disputes? Yes, that is just the nature of the articles that I edit. They are popular, everyone has their opinion, and issues often become quite extensive. Have I accidentally broken 3RR? Yes, and that is completely my bad and something that I try very hard to avoid. I am always happy to discuss issues and have demonstrated that prolifically over my many years here. Do I constantly end up in major arguments with editors such as Hijiri88 or yourself who believe that discussion and the forming of consensus do not apply to them? Yes, and that is unfortunate but it is something I have learned to deal with. Thankfully the majority of editors that I come into contact with a not like that. Am I going to allow these blatant attempts to degrade my character get in the way of the issue at hand? No. I ask that we stop having these multiple conversations, head down to the bottom of this section, and get this wrapped up in a civilised way as soon as possible so we can all get on with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Please provide a diff of me indication that I believe that discussion and the forming of consensus do not apply to [me]], or retract that personal attack.

I am frankly getting pretty sick of dealing with these non-stop accusations from you. You still have not apologized for or retracted this incident where you defended a troll writing my username in a manner that implied I was a Nazi or for this ... piping hot mess. I refrained from specifically linking them above because I was assuming you wouldn't just repeat the same pattern of behaviour, but it seems I was wrong.

Again, please provide a diff or retract your gross accusation.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

One Editor’s Thoughts

This dispute came to DRN on 14 August 2018, and I agreed to try to conduct moderated discussion. I determined that the issue, as stated above, is that the filing party, aeusoes1, had made multiple changes to the plot summary and that the other party, adamstom_97, reverted them. The filing party listed their changes and reasons. I instructed them to discuss the changes on the article talk page while the case remained open at DRN. adamstom_97 declined to discuss them, saying that they were willing to discuss any one change. It is the right of any party at DRN to decline to take part in proceedings, so I closed the thread and advised that the next step should be a Request for Comments. It is unfortunate that aeusoes1 has decided to turn this into a conduct issue, and I am not entirely sure what the conduct issue is. It appears to this content resolution volunteer to be a content dispute, or maybe six content disputes, that can be resolved by RFC, even if they can’t be resolved by discussion. Neither party has behaved in an exemplary way, but neither party has been guilty of such serious misconduct that we need to be here at ANI. On the one hand, aeusoes1 does appear to be making changes for the sake of changes. (Two or three plot summary changes could be justified as improvements, but the number of changes did push the limit.) On the other hand, adamstom_97 does appear to be reverting for the sake of reverting. The changes that they made while I was moderating (which I did prohibit) were reverts of changes by other editors than aeusoes1. It still appears to be primarily a content dispute, and one that can be dealt with by an RFC or by six RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

My recommendation is that the filing party be given a TROUT for trying to frame a content dispute as a conduct dispute, and then both parties be admonished to resolve the content dispute by one or more RFCs. We don’t need to come back to WP:ANI unless the RFC is disrupted, and I don’t think that the editors are being disruptive, only stubborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. It seems to me that your role as a DRN volunteer has prompted you to be equal-minded in a dispute, which can help de-escalate tense situations, but it can also create a false equivalence as you have done here. I considered your suggestion of going to RfC, but Adamstom.97's last comment at DRN where he told me to "get over it" struck me as a clear indicator that the real impediment to resolution was his behavior. This comment alone shows a disdain for civil discussion and, given the time taken to break everything down for him specifically, a quite callous inconsiderateness to other people's efforts on his behalf. Even above, he considers this point-by-point breakdown (something I only did because you had asked me to provide further justifications for my edits) an intentional act of disruption, saying "What is also ridiculous was the amount of stuff you wanted me to wade through and respond to" (and linking to WP:WALLOFTEXT).

If he had said "hey, that's a lot of stuff. Give me some time to respond" or "I don't have time to respond to everything, but I (dis)agree with A B C because of X Y Z" it would have shown a good faith effort in the face of limited time as a volunteer. Instead, his comments show he would rather close things off than engage in a discussion. If he doesn't have enough time to justify reverts in the talk page, he shouldn't be placing them in the first place. But I suppose you see things differently. So tell me, Robert, how should I read "get over it" as a hallmark of good editing practice or civil discussion? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

User:aeusoes1 - I said that neither of the editors had behaved in an exemplary manner, and you are giving me further evidence with regard to both of you. You asked 'So tell me, Robert, how should I read "get over it" as a hallmark of good editing practice or civil discussion? ' How you should read "get over it" is in full context, which you have omitted and thus changed its meaning. Adamstom.97 said that they would be willing to discuss any one change, but that if your position is that the whole thing needs to be rewritten, you should get over it. You can still discuss each of your six changes in an RFC. Before I address your rhetorical question further, I will ask you to consider that you have two-and-one-half alternatives at this point. First, you still have two RFC options. You can either publish one RFC, to replace the plot summary with your version, or you can publish six RFCs for your six changes. The fact that Adamstom.97 has chosen not to discuss the changes does not block an RFC, since an RFC is binding on the community. RFC is a way to work around an editor who doesn't discuss civilly (or with editors who do discuss civilly).

Second, you can treat the dismissal of your changes as article ownership, a conduct issue, and can go to WP:ANI, and ask for sanctions. You haven't made a strong enough case to be likely to get sanctions, a block or a topic-ban. So requesting sanctions at ANI is not likely to be useful. Option two-and-one-half is that you go to WP:ANI to discuss the issue without asking for sanctions. That is never useful, and I mean never. ANI is not a forum for the discussion of content disputes. It is only a forum for the discussion of conduct, and conduct is dealt with by sanctions. If the offense isn't one for which sanctions will be imposed, then the offense is one that isn't worth bringing to ANI. The only result of general complaints with no request for sanctions is to stir up anger, which doesn't help. Since you are already here, I suggest that you think about the options. You can withdraw this complaint or let it be closed, and go with an RFC or six. You can request a block or a topic-ban, and probably not get it. Or you can just want to discuss how unreasonable the other party has been, and there will be a discussion of how unreasonable both editors have been. Those are your choices. What do you want: the input of the community on the plot summary, or an angry unproductive discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

When an editor says they are willing to discuss any change, but then doesn't discuss changes while they say that they have, then the editor either doesn't know what discussion entails or is gaslighting. So when Adamstom.97 says "I have no issue with fixing any issue that the summary has" but resists even basic grammatical corrections, then his words are at odds with his behavior. That's what turns a content dispute into a conduct issue.

When Adamstom.97 strawmans my edits as rewriting the whole summary when I only rewrote the first paragraph and when he strawmans my bulleted list as a wall of text, this is a rhetorical tool to dismiss my proposed changes. Adamstom.97 shows no indication that he has considered any of my proposed changes and has instead told me explicitly that I should stop trying without giving actual reasons. I've identified that as problematic and you somehow wish to twist this into me acting poorly because you've decided to take his words outside of the fuller context in order to read him generously. I hope you can now see why your admonishment rings hollow to me. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no. There are at least two types of combined content-conduct dispute. There are those where the conduct must be sanctioned in order to resume the mission of improving the encyclopedia. There are also content-conduct disputes where the conduct can be ignored or bypassed to continue the focus on improving content (which is after all the mission of the encyclopedia). Are you saying that it is necessary to sanction Adamstom.97 before the improvement of the content can resume? Or are you saying only that it is necessary to discuss the conduct of Adamstom.97 here? If the latter, it doesn't work. Discussing a conduct issue without proposing sanctions is just generating more anger that interferes with resuming discussion of conduct. What I am saying, and perhaps you disagree, is that the stubbornness and dismissive attitude of Adamstom.97 is better ignored than discussed, and that proceeding with an RFC or six RFCs will permit progress on content, while focusing on conduct will merely distract. So you are insisting that this must be addressed as a conduct issue. Are you proposing sanctions, or only discussion? If the former, what sanction? If the latter, since merely discussing user conduct doesn't help, what will be gained by discussion of user conduct? An alternative would be to discuss your proposed changes by RFC, with or without the participation of Adamstom.97, but you apparently would prefer to fixate on conduct and avoid going back to improving content. Think about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so now it's a content-conduct dispute. I guess I'm getting somewhere with you. I get what you're saying. I could do an RfC and get an overwhelming community response that would drown out Adamstom.97's resistance and would likely involve a give-and-take related to my suggestions that would lead to an even better version than what I proposed. That would, indeed, fix the content issue. But that wouldn't fix the conduct issue, which is why I've come here. Not only would it do nothing to address Adamstom.97's problematic approach, but it would, if anything, vindicate his belief in the idea that even the smallest of changes must pass through rigorous scrutiny once a consensus has been established. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, do you want to ask sanctions against Adamstom.97, or to discuss his conduct? The latter is not helpful, and never accomplishes anything except to arouse already hard feelings. At this point a block would be punitive, so that isn't on the table. So do you want to propose a topic-ban? Or do you have some other idea? Or are you willing to deal with the content aspect of the dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are false choices and strawman arguments. Just because I don't presume to know the best solution doesn't mean that I'm not seeking solutions. Also, just because I'm here trying to address a conduct issue doesn't mean that I'm not willing to deal with the content aspect of the dispute. In fact, if Adamstom.97 right now went to the talk page and started addressing the content (and I mean really addressing it, not just pretending to) then I would consider the issue at least temporarily resolved. I've even explained how he could show a good faith effort in the face of limited time he's able to devote as a volunteer.

If sanctions are too strong, an explicit warning might be a good way to create a record of community censure that can lead to stronger actions if the behavior continues. As I said, though, he has already gotten reminders of what he should be doing and none of it is taking. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 13:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not offering strawman arguments or false choices. You admit that you came to WP:ANI without a clue as to what to do here. Perhaps you are learning that the function of WP:ANI is to deal with conduct by sanctions. You haven't said what sanction you are asking for. You have now finally made a half-plausible suggestion, a censure or warning. I can at least oppose that, knowing what it is, and I oppose that because I think that Adamstom.97 has a right to refuse to deal with 6 plot changes, and you have a right to take your 6 plot changes to RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that coming to ANI without a specific sanction in mind will only stir up anger. I came to ANI with a behavioral issue and a request for assistance. The assistance could be sanctions, it could be warnings, it could be an offer of mentorship, or who else knows what. If I came with a specific sanction in mind, it would show that I care more about punishing Adamstom.97, when I would rather he correct his behavior so that this sort of thing doesn't come up again in the future.

Take note, by the way, that you have so far neglected to even address my charge of article ownership. You've seemingly ignored my evidence (perhaps with a tl;dr glaze in your eyes) and focused on me because you think I should have ignored the behavioral issue and gone to an RfC. You have made your perspective clear; I understand why you are making that recommendation, but I disagree that it is the best solution in regards to user conduct.

Now can we please focus on the charges I've made? If you don't think that this behavior is indicative of article ownership, please tell me why. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions? Closing Time?

Closing time

-EEng

I think that the issues have been addressed here, and it is time to close. My own recommendation is that this is a content-conduct dispute that can be dealt with by the content procedure of an RFC or six RFCs, and that this thread should be closed with cautions to both parties. The alternative is to impose sanctions on one or both of the editors. Since User:aeusoes1 disagrees with my assessment, perhaps they have a proposal for sanctions against User:Adamstom.97. If they merely want to discuss conduct, we have already discussed conduct, and more discussion won't help. Are there any other ideas? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I came here without a proposed sanction because I don't presume to know better than those who deal with conduct issues regularly. While I'd like to think that you are a fair-minded arbiter, your continuing insistence of this false-equivalence narrative has been less than helpful. It almost seems by your comments that you are impugning my motives; you think that I just want to drag Adamstom.97's name in the mud or that I'm not actually interested in discussing content. Do you really believe that my behavior is just as problematic as Adamstom.97's because I have come to ANI with a conduct issue when you think I could have just ignored it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like you think editors can only be fair-minded if they support your position. We can chuck that in the basket along with you not having to discuss contested changes to consensus, and you being able to make up false claims about other editors to get your way. If you just focused on the issue at hand and began the RfC(s) as suggested rather than taking a phrase I used out of context and having it justify a full ANI thread then we could have avoided a whole lot of grief and mess. As I have said numerous times, I am happy to have a reasonable discussion about your concerns with the plot summary. The question is, are you? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Aeusoes1 - You wrote: 'Do you really believe that my behavior is just as problematic as Adamstom.97's because I have come to ANI with a conduct issue when you think I could have just ignored it?' I am not comparing your behavior to that of User:Adamstom.97. At this point your behavior is more problematic than that of Adamstom.97, because you are insisting on addressing a conduct issue when you could have worked past it by an RFC. If you think that the conduct issue needs to be addressed before the content can be addressed (and content is the mission of the encyclopedia), then propose a conduct sanction. If you just want to discuss conduct without proposing a sanction, then, to use a quote taken out of context, "Get over it". Discussing conduct without discussing sanctions does nothing but stir up anger. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Telling me my behavior is worse is comparing it to his. I don't see how not ignoring article ownership is worse than article ownership. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring article ownership? You've completely lost sight of what this whole issue is about, and are refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing on your part whatsoever. This whole situation continues to get more and more ridiculous. Could you not just try and get new consensus at the talk page like any other editor would? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I've already laid out my justifications in the talk page. The ball is in your court. What are you waiting for?

By the way, I'm not opposed to an RfC. Given the extent of this dispute, I'll likely do one no matter what the result of this discussion is — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Your "justifications" were unreasonable, which I have been saying all along. I want to have a normal conversation that we can get a whole lot more eyes on than just you and me, either in the form of an RfC or not. You going and writing almost 1000 words on a simple content dispute is not starting a reasonable discussion, and actually seems more like a tactic to scare me off than anything else. If you want to form a new consensus, that is not how you should go about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• In my assessment of the situation, Adamstom.97 is indeed exhibiting uncollaborative ownership behavior. The talk page exchange is bizarre, Aeusoes is clearly attempting to be as reasonable and thorough as possible, and Adam comes across as outright hostile and combative and impossible to collaborate with from his very first reply. I see this very much as a behavioral issue; an editor like Adam is impossible to collaborate with via good faith dispute resolution, and he has proven that exceptionally well. In the beginning of the conversation, Adam makes it exceedingly clear that he is not contesting the changes for any particular reason; he simply didn't like an editor "just showing up and changing the plot". This approach is fundamentally incompatible with WP:BOLD, which specifies that bold edits like the ones in question are encouraged as a matter of policy. He then followed it up by claiming the plot had "inherent consensus". This claim is fundamentally incompatible with WP:SILENCE. The existence of a "silent consensus" is not a reason to revert, because a silent consensus no longer exists once an editor makes a change. So, from the beginning of the discussion, Adam is disputing changes from two entirely invalid points, which is outright disruptive. Then, still without specifying actual objections, he lectured the user that they needed to get pre-approval of their edits on the talk page because it's "good manners", and repeated multiple times that he has explained the reasons for his reverts (referring to the aforementioned invalid claims he was making). He then shifted into repeatedly admonishing the user for "making changes for changes' sake", a meaningless phrase not rooted in any sort of policy on a project where bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy. Aeusoes continued to attempt to explain his edits in good faith, but Adam did not respond on the talk page further. This all happened at the beginning of August. Between then and now, it was taken to DRN, where Adam continued to object to Aeusoes's edits purely out of principle, without citing any specific objections. Robert, the moderator, shockingly admonished the filer, claiming that "neither editor is trying to give serious considerations to the other editor's reasons", in spite of the fact that Adam was quite clearly disputing good faith edits for no valid reason. Adam continued to repeat his meaningless sentiments that the changes were not an improvement and were only "made for changes' sake". Aeusoes directly refuted this, providing a detailed breakdown of what his changes were and why they were improvements. Adam, appallingly, completely dismissed this effort, claiming that he's "not going through all of those changes" and that if Aeusoes wants to do a rewrite, then he needs to "get over it". He then reverted back to telling Aeusoes to get approval on the talk page: "If you are absolutely dead-set on making all of these changes, then perhaps you could attempt to continue the talk page discussion with the hopes of the wider community getting involved", while still failing to provide any concrete reasonings that he objects to the edits. Aeusoes then brought Adam here, where the unreal display continues. Adam is still telling Aeusoes that he cannot perform his bold edit without getting prior approval. This is so unbelievably out of line that I cannot even believe this user maintains a clean block log. @Adamstom.97: This is a shocking display of tendentious ownership behavior on your part. You respond on the talk page, point by point, with what your specific objections are, and anything you don't specifically object to, you allow the user to implement. Anything you do specifically object to, you discuss, and if you remain at an impasse, then you seek outside input. That is how WP:BRD works. That is how WP:DR works. You never revert simply because you don't feel an editor does not have the right to make good faith edits. Any continued indication of ownership or otherwise uncollaborative behavior will result in a block. This has gone on for far too long. This is a formal, and final, warning that will be logged at WP:ER/UC. Swarm ♠ 10:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Back to Closing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we close this thread with an admonition to both parties and a reminder that one RFC or six RFCs can be used? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.