Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955

Pattern of making controversial title changes without RM or discussion by user In ictu oculi

In ictu oculi holds views that often differ from mine about article titles, which is no crime, of course, except he regularly engages in unilateral page moves, without discussion, that are in accordance with his eccentric views, but are often contrary to consensus view, or are at least clearly controversial. WP:RM is quite clear about potentially controversial title changes - they should be avoided, and requests at RM should be initiated instead. Anyway, IIO has been warned in the past, and I warned him yesterday, and he made some more moves today, so I'm asking for assistance. This has been an ongoing problem for the better part of a decade.

A couple of recent examples:

• Yesterday, he moved To the Max! to To the Max! (Max Roach album) [1]. (I reverted [2] and asked him to stop on his talk page[3])
• Today, he moved Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) [4]. (I reverted this undiscussed controversial move adding unnecessary disambiguation to a title [5].)

Warnings/discussions:

• By PaleCloudedWhite PBS, in an ANI notice, in August of 2012 [6].
• By Tbhotch, in another ANI, in 2014 [7].
• By me, on IIO's talk page, in October of 2016: [8]
• By me, on IIO's talk page, yesterday [9]

IIO and I often clash on title decisions so I'm not the most objective judge, so I ask others to confirm there is an issue here. I'm hopeful a serious warning coming from someone other than me should resolve this chronic problem for good. --?²C ? 01:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He probably moved To the Max! to To the Max! (Max Roach album) because there are two other entities named To the Max. These lack the wow sign. But except for the punctuation (which is not pronounced) they are identical. It is reasonable to say "These are enough alike to constitute essentially the same title". It's a judgment call whether to ask for a Requested Move in a case like this. But a Requested Move means asking your colleagues to drop what they are doing and consider your question. You don't want to do it if you figure it's probably just a technical fix. So I can see someone going ahead and doing it, subject to a Requested Move discussion if someone objects. In ictu oculi moves a lot of pages, so some of these are going to be disputed.

On the other hand, moving Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film), are you sure he didn't do this to make room for an article on the actual Bombay Mail train or something? (Even if he did, he needs to say so in his move summaries). If not, this would be highly idiosyncratic and I'd be interested to hear about that. If there's a pattern of this kind of move (and not making way for a new article) then that's not good. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, both situations mentioned by B2C are covered by WP:DIFFCAPS, a subsection of WP:AT IIO knows exists, and IIO knows a related-move can be seen as contentious. Although both titles are ambiguous, having To the Max! redirecting to To the Max! (Max Roach album), because there is no other "To the Max!" (in place of simply having a {{other uses}} or an {{About}}); and not creating an article about Bombay Mail train/office and preemptively moving it to "(1934 film)" when there is no other film with the same name are common problems with IIO. Bombay Mail (train) (recent redirect) just redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line where it is only mentioned as "he Mumbai-Howrah Mail via Allahabad is called Calcutta Mail between Mumbai and Allahabad, and Mumbai Mail (some still call it by its old name, Bombay Mail)". Other examples exist, they can be found on the public log, like Haco or Mercedes (film), Dt., or Nueva Era (this is just a redirection problem, but he never attempted to fix it), when enough time has past to have written an article to make disambiguation valid, but they solely are redirects to the article they were originally titled, or back in September when he moved Sivi Kingdom to Sivi (king), unexplained, despite the fact the article discusses more the kingdom than the homonym king, also note that he decided to move it to "Sivi (king)" and not to "King Sivi", "Sivi King" or "Kingdom of Sivi", which are more natural terms. The reason for a move I guess was to justify the move of Sivi to Sivi (film), but in itself you don't need to move A to justify B. And this is just for moving articles, there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates. At WT:Notability, my talk page and WT:CDS are examples of what I'm talking about, but these aren't all the examples. Unfortunately I don't have all of them, but it is a start. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm among editors who disagree with B2C's views on titling, as he says above. B2C's view against disambiguation and recognizability tend to be outliers, as his activity on guideline Talk pages shows.

Occasionally we all get something wrong, and if there's a discussion or objection I listen and then that's easily resolved. I do a lot of work on disambiguation, and occasionally someone objects. Looking at the last ten:

1. Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) ([Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) summary (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2017-03-12&end=2017-04-20&pages=Wild_Boy_(song)%7CWild_Boy%7CWild_Boy_(novel))

Wild Boy 1934 film was getting 4 out of 72 views. A dab page was needed, can anyone see any problem with creation of a dab page here?

2. Intrigue (film) to Intrigue (1947 film) summary (Intrigue (1942 film)

There's also Intrigue (1942 film), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.

3. Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) summary (Bombay Mail (1935 film))

As the summary says there is another film, WP:NCF, but there's also Bombay Mail (train), again Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.

4. The Scandal to The Scandal (1923 film) summary (The Scandal (1934 film) The Scandal (1943 film))

per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again

5. The Mirage (film) to The Mirage (1920 film) see The Mirage (2015 film), a Canadian comedy-drama film

per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again

6. Sybil (book) to Sybil (Schreiber book) (Sybil (novel))

The Disraeli "novel" is also a "book" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

7. The Mirage (Al-Sarab) to The Mirage (Al-Suwaidi book)

Per author name not Arabic word for "The Mirage", Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

8. Metahistory to Metahistory (Hayden White) (the term was in use decades before the book)

The problem here were mislinks to 1973 book from the adjective metahistorical and generic term metahistory. The 1973 book Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe is an important book, but a book about metahistory, not the subject itself.

9. Haunted London (1973) to Haunted London (Underwood book)

We don't disambiguate by year Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

10. To the Max! to Talk:To the Max! (Max Roach album) (not always found with !)

As already reverted and not contested. The context not mentioned above is that this was a third album after To the Max to To the Max (Con Funk Shun album) and To the Max (album) to To the Max (The Mentors album). These were clearly mistitled per WP:NCM. The ! isn't found in some sources per Drummin' Men: The Heartbeat of Jazz The Bebop Years by Burt Koral, but whatever that was an afterthought, the main job was fixing the partial disambiguation of two (or three) albums.

We could go on to review the last 100 moves related to disambiguation or dab pages I have created or expanded. No need to stop at the last 10, but is the work of correcting incomplete titles contrary to naming conventions per se a bad thing? If it is tell me and I'll cease contributing to disambiguation pages. More than happy to do so if this work is not wanted by the editing community. I don't get paid, any more than the rest of you girls and guys. If it's not useful tell me. I'll go. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing here we can all agree is that if not about how useful or useless is your editing, it is about how you are doing your editing. With B2C's, this is the 5th or 6th user that has a complain about your editing pattern, how many users do you need to stop for a moment and ask to yourself "Am I doing this right?" Let's take Bombay Mail as the example here:

You create Bombay Mail (1935 film), you move Bombay Mail (1934 film), and you created Bombay Mail (train). All OK but you missed one thing, which was the reason B2C could revert the move: you didn't create a disambiguation page. At least you now create an article to rely the disambiguation, months ago you used to move pages only because a similarly titled work existed and no single article was created. In this example, B2C moved the page back 3 hours later. Also, I'm quite sure you would have never created a disambiguation page and the base title would have been a redirect until someone else noticed it, like when this took 2 months, or this 9 months, or when you moved Haco, and it still redirecting to its previous article, or dozens of similar examples that you have not fixed, but instead of fixing them, you move to another article to continue doing the same. Or even worse, doing moves like this or this with no single reason given. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I can confirm that I have run across instances where IIO has moved a page to a title with a disambiguator, but in the process, doesn't create a disambiguation page. However, this wasn't always the case: The lack of creating disambiguation pages may be a recently-developing issue. I recall a few years ago, IIO moved quite a few song or album related pages from base titles to tiles with disambiguators and then created disambiguation pages at the leftover redirect's base title. However, such disambiguation pages were created before the consensus was established declaring that if an article about a song or album is the only article by that name that exists on Wikipedia, then it should be at the base title. (I can't recall where that guideline is at the moment, but I am sure you know what in referring to since I think we've crossed each other's paths regarding this in the past.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to the original complaint and User:Tbhotch) -- I am confused. IIO did construct another meaning for "Bombay Mail" -- "Bombay Mail (train)". It is just a redirect, true, but so? He had to move the article to make room for the redirect.

The original complaint implied that IIO moved "Bombay Mail" to a title with meaningless, unnecessary disambiguation. Here I was all "Whaaat? What's wrong with IIO, to do something like that?"

But that's not the deal at all. So can we get our facts straight please.

So now that complaint seems to come down to "IIO created a redirect, and I wish he hadn't". I mean, I guess you could take it to Redirects for Discussion, and maybe that's where that discussion should happen rather than here.

And there are two films named "Bombay Mail", one made in 1934 and one in 1935. Right? That is what IMDb says. So is it really so terrible to name your article "Bombay Mail (1934 film)" instead of "Bombay Mail (film)", considering that there is another film of that name with which a reader might get confused? True, it's not precisely correct (Unless IIO is planning to create an article on the other film) and that does matter.

As to "there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates"... isn't this getting a little bit scattershot here? Can we stick to one thing maybe.

So what is the desired end here? "IIO must initiate a Requested Move discussion for any and all moves"? And maybe that would be fine and is necessary. The claim is that there's a general pattern of misfeasance. I don't see it in those two tiny examples, but if there's a pattern it ought to come out with a little investigation. Can we get some actual examples of actual specific wrongdoing? This would help. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Why sticking to one thing at the time? Sticking to one problem at the time is the reason why this edit pattern has not been revised, checked or even penalized through either ANI or even his ArbCom discussion, and how he has been being WP:GAMING since circa 2012. I literally gave you a link of how he in 2013 was trying to WP:POINT the speedy deletion criteria, something he still doing, yet I'm being a "little bit scattershot". Like you want me to open below a subsection of how he has been creating BLP WP:A7 articles before and after that CSD discussion, because I can do that. Or maybe you do not want me to do it because apparently we humans cannot focus in more than one problem at the same time. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 14:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Herostratus, the problem is not with IIO creating another meaning for "Bombay Mail" (a redirect named Bombay Mail (train) that redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line), but with him unilaterally (without discussion or RM) moving the article previously at Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) (it has since been reverted). The list above is just a list of a couple of recent examples. It was not mean to be exhaustive, but he does this stuff all the time. IIO shows little respect for the need to let others weigh in on these decisions; he does not recognize that his opinion on these matters is often contrary to that of the community. --?²C ? 16:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: Born2cycle's opening comment could give the impression that I have opened a thread about In ictu oculi at ANI before, in 2012, but this is not the case; instead my original comment was being quoted by another editor there. If you look at IIO's response to what I originally wrote, it's apparent that there wasn't really a dispute. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not realize you were being quoted there. I've stricken the reference to you and corrected it. --B²C ? 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm also worried about In ictu oculi often renaming pages when unwarranted, and also disregarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as Born2cycle noted below. Extra DAB's in certain cases simply don't help at all and very needlessly go against WP:CONCISE. It might be a case of WP:IDHT in certain instances. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at one case, and extrapolate from there

OK. The case of "Haco" is mentioned above. Let's leave "Bombay Mail" out of it because it's recent and articles are just now being created, so it's muddied; let's look at "Haco" instead.

It's just one case, but the assertion is made that this is typical. So let's start there anyway.

OK, the article Haco existed, being created 2006. It is about a singer.

On March 10 2017, In ictu oculi [created the redirect Haco (king). It redirects to Haki, and indeed that article gives "Haco" as an alternative name for that king, and has for many years. So OK so far.

One minute later on March 10 2017, In ictu oculi moved "Haco" to "Haco (singer)", which automatically left "Haco" as a redirect to "Haco (singer)". OK so far.

In ictu oculi now had a choice to make. He could rewrite Haco as a disambiguation page, pointing to the article Haco (singer) and the redirect Haco (king), and possibly adding in Haco V (a redirect to Haakon V of Norway which has existed since 2005) and so forth, and possibly with a "See also" section mentioning Hako (disambiguation) and so forth.

Or he could have figured that Haco (king) is the primary topic, and rewritten Haco to redirect there. Or he could have figured that Haco (singer) is the primary topic, in which case he should have not moved Haco (or moved it back if, after consideration, he concluded that the singer is the primary topic). In either case, if In ictu oculi thought that there was a primary topic, then the primary topic -- either the article about the singer, or the redirect to the king -- should have been named "Haco", and so his series of moves and article namings should have been different.

But in any case, In ictu oculi -- if he wasn't going to create a disambiguation page -- should have added a hatnote to Haco (singer). This he did not do, as can be shown by this history. This was an error of omission.

Couple secondary detail points

(In ictu oculi did edit the (already existing) hatnote at Haki (which is now the target of Haki (king)), but only to change it from "for the village in Iran see Haki, Iran" to "This article is about King Hake. For the village in Iran, see Haki, Iran. For railway station in Japan, see Haki Station." (So no mention of "Haco (king)" which is OK, since "Haco (king)" does not redirect to "Haki"; if it did, a "Haco (king) redirects here..." note might have been in order. So this edit it OK, it neither breaks nor fixes anything, its just something In ictu oculi did while he was in the area I assume.))

(This shows that seven pages link to Haco, which is a redirect page, while according to this only one non-redirect page targets Haco (singer). So the assumption is that link cleanup was not done. So this is likely another error of omission. It's not a capital crime, I have forgotten to do this myself on (rare) occasion and I think maybe bots clean this up (not sure). But still.)

All this strikes me as rather odd. With no disambiguation page and no hatnote at Haco (singer), there isn't any way for a reader to access Haco (king) (and thereby Haki, if they know him as Haco). Yes sure she can type "Haco king" in the search box, but that's unnatural; more likely would be "king haco" or "haco of norway" or perhaps "haco mythology" or "haco norse" or "haco ynglinga" -- none of which will lead to reader the desired goal, Haki. (Haco (king) has no incoming links.)

So this looks like a sub-optimal job. I don't see the gain. Neither is it terrible -- the ability of readers to get to where the want to is neither lessened nor increased, nor has any data been added or lost. It's a wash, but it did end with Haco now being at Haco (singer) when this isn't strictly necessary -- it follows from the decision to make no dab page and no hatnote at Haco (singer) that there was no reason to move Haco to Haco (singer) if nothing was going to be done with Haco (king). Haco (king), floating in limbo as it does, does not impinge on Haco continuing to be an article about the singer instead of a redirect to the article about the singer.

You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules. I couldn't care much less, but for Haco (singer) to exist at that title when it could remain at just Haco makes some people claw the draperies -- and they do have the rules and accepted practice on their side, without question. Since they do, asking the admin corps for backup is reasonable IMO.

No move was made wrongly, nor was there a case where a Requested Move should have been initiated instead of just moving stuff. Rather, the problem is that the moves were fine, but failing to make dab, or even a hatnote, afterwards is not OK. (Also link cleanup was not done apparently). This is not exactly just a content dispute, but a failure to follow optimal procedure.

Coming into this analysis with no preconception, I do see where at least in this one case its problematical. As I said above, the assertion is this case is typical normal for In ictu oculi, and he doesn't care to follow optimal procedure, and some sort of warning or injunction about this is requested.

So In ictu oculi, what's the deal here? Did I miss something, or what? Or was this case exceptional? Herostratus (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Good analysis and I hope you can now appreciate how time consuming this is. If you take almost any one of IIO's unilateral moves like this one in isolation it appears to be contrary to policy but not that serious; it's the pattern of doing this repeatedly that's the issue. You also hit upon a key point: "You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules." IIO demonstrates no respect for this community consensus viewpoint and others too (e.g., he seems to barely recognize WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Consistently and repeatedly. This is why I think he should stop making these moves. His judgement is off relative to community consensus. He can argue my judgement is off too on these matters, in the other direction. And I concede it might be - but that's why I tend to not make unilateral moves. He should too. --В²C ☎ 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the move of Haco to Haco (singer) [10]. --В²C ☎ 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The info above is incorrect. This was originally a redirect to the Norwegian king, the insertion of the Japanese singer is a more recent addition, see Talk page of article. @Herostratus: as the summary says "Haco (king) see books" "Haco was" in Google Books. It's too far back to recall but typically if I didn't create a dab immediately it was because I was giving opportunity to anyone involved in the article to revert and let any link and templates settle. And then it was peacefully reverted and I didn't make any drama. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Could you possibly be more cryptic? No. Is that an oversight or are you leaving a modicum of CYA defense while hoping to not draw any attention? That aside, so what your comment summary meant was that moving the Japanese singer from the base name is justified due to the existence of the reference to the king as "Haco" as shown by searching for Haco in Google Books? Well, the Japanese singer has been at this base name title since 2011. Again, just like in the Bombay Mail case below, you don't even bother asking the primary topic questions let alone getting the community to answer before you start moving. More evidence supporting this proposal. --В²C ☎ 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

But look at Bombay Mail closer because it's a good example

• Bombay Mail is a 1934 American film. The article has existed since 2016 when it was created by Koala15.
• On April 26, 2017 at 13:56 In ictu oculi unilaterally moved it to Bombay Mail (1934 film) (I've since reverted this move).
• On April 26, 2017 at 13:51 In ictu oculi created Bombay Mail (1935 film), a Hindi language film.

Now, here's the point. These are both relatively obscure films, but between them, on the English WP, the American film is likely to be a bonafide WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Likely enough that no one should unilaterally decide it's not. But IIO did, and moved the article accordingly. Again, taken in isolation it's not a horrible crime, but he does this stuff all the time, and needs to stop. --В²C ☎ 23:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I dunno; reading that, my first thought was "train, ship, plane, or service?"...and it turns out it's all four. This was, and is, with a couple of m/b shifts, a ship route, the eponymous cargo, the train and a possibly even flying boat route. I expect, seriously, that the post service is far more important historically than either film. Disambguating them out seems a good call. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Except he left Bombay Mail as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bombay Mail (1934 film), implying it is the primary topic. Well, if it is, then it shouldn't be disambiguated. But there are good arguments to made, as you did, that maybe there is no primary topic. That's the point; the issue of whether it is the primary topic is obviously potentially controversial, and precisely what needs to be determined, and that's why we have WP:RM, to make these determinations. It should not be determined unilaterally. You can't just look at each of these in isolation to see the pattern. --В²C ☎ 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Because as has been explained before (a) it takes time for templates to adjust, (b) it allows yourself to follow me. I didn't delay so much before you started this. Bombay Mail is a pretty typical example of there being one major topic Bombay Mail (train) and two minor topics Bombay Mail (1934 film) and Bombay Mail (1935 film) the only thing preventing a dab page has been yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody including me is preventing you or anyone else from creating the dab page at Bombay Mail (disambiguation). And it's not me preventing the dab page at the base name, In ictu oculi, it's the consensus-supported concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that's preventing it, a concept for which you have shown little if any regard. In this case as in many there may or may not be a primary topic. Do reliable English sources ever even refer to the IIO-linked train as "Bombay Mail"? Even if they do how likely is a user searching with "Bombay Mail" to be looking for the train or either of the films? These are questions you don't even seem to bother asking let alone try to get an answer from the community before moving articles affected by these answers. Sadly, that's why you need to be kept from unilaterally moving articles titles. --В²C ☎ 13:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at A True Woman

Tbhotch linked to this this above; let's take a closer look.

• 2007: Created as A True Woman
• April 29, 2016: inexplicably moved by In ictu oculi to The Heart of a Woman (Baroness Orczy novel) [11]. No explanation in summary. Nothing on talk page.
• April 3, 2017: reverted by Tbhotch with summary: "Unexplained move"

Is the relatively obscure book better known by its American title The Heart of a Woman, then by it's British title, A True Woman? Perhaps, but since the former requires disambiguation (conflict with Maya Angela book with same title), why not leave it at the latter? Well, if you prefer "more informative" titles, as IIO does, then the move makes sense. For him. So does making the move when you know if you put it up to an RM it's likely to get rejected, but if you do it unilaterally it might not get noticed (as it did not in this case for almost a year). I don't want to speculate about IIO's true motives, which even he might not be fully aware of, but the bottom line is that this is not a slam dunk rename. It's obviously potentially controversial, and IIO should know this, and know better than to make such moves. --В²C ☎ 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd have expected there was a guideline for this, that might be modified in occasional cases -MBE (as opposed to my own favorite, MBP). I'd also expect that a book by a prominent, if adopted, British author would go by the title published by in London, rather than New York. I think someone would have to make the case pretty strongly for it to be otherwise.

On the other hand "might not get noticed" does cut both ways, it implies that this is a bit of a coin-toss. Anmccaff (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, it "might not get noticed" because it's an obscure article with few if any watchers. And even if it is a coin-toss, that means it can go either way, indicating it is potentially controversial. Precisely the kind of decision that should go to RM - not made unilaterally by one editor, let alone by one with a reputation for often having opinions contrary to community consensus on such matters. --В²C ☎ 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of 10,000s of edits you are going back 12 months to April 2016? This is a level of forensic investigation that no active volunteer on the encyclopedia could pass. Yes Google Books indicates that the American title is better known, possibly because it is still in print in this title but out of print in the UK one. But really 12 months ago? Out of 10,000s of edits? A more common US title is suddenly urgent enough for ANI? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no CSI "forensic investigation" drama over here. The Heart of a Woman was the TFA for April 4, 2017. The original article included links to two unrelated albums, so I changed to to the dab page that already existed. There I noticed the weird title "The Heart of a Woman (Baroness Orczy novel)" as we shouldn't be using royal titles for disambiguations. Then clicking the article you find that A) it starts with "A True Woman (US Title The Heart of a Woman)", B) the infobox says "A True Woman" and it includes a book cover with this title, so why it had a different title? I didn't had to go further to know why. It doesn't matter if "Google Books [sic] indicates that the American title is better known". This is a British book by a British author, and WP:RETAIN applies. Otherwise Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is to be titles Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. This is the exact thing B2C is complaining (and others below not completely understanding), that you decide by yourself over and over again how to title articles ignoring policies and guidelines when convenient for you. WP:NCBOOKS, a guide you already knew by then, would have suggested "The Heart of a Woman (Orczy novel)", assuming it was a needed move, and any normal editor would have asked if original English titles are to be used over adapted English titles. The same applies to Sivi below. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at Sivi

Tbhotch also linked to this above.

• 22:09, March 8, 2006‎: Sivi Kingdom created by Jijithnr [12]
• Sep 20, 2016, Sivi Kingdom inexplicably moved by In ictu oculi to Sivi (king) [13]

No corresponding adjustments seem to have been made either. For example, the Sivi dab page still links to Sivi Kingdom (not to Sivi (king)). But wait, the plot thickens.

• 2007 LRBurdak creates article about the film as Sivi.
• Sep 20, 2016 Sivi inexplicably moved to Sivi (film) by In ictu oculi (well, we can divine that he did it to make room for a dab page)
• Sep 20, 2016, now that Sivi is a redirect to Sivi (film), IIO converts the Sivi redirect to a dab page [14] with three entries: Sivi Kingdom, Sivi (film), and a link to SIVI.

Now, if we look at the relevant page view stats it's obvious that a strong argument can be made that the film (now at Sivi (film)) is the primary topic and should have remained at the base name, Sivi.

Again, all this is for the community to decide, in a proper WP:RM. It's not for IIO or anyone else to make these decisions unilaterally. It's about the pattern. He needs to be told to stop. --В²C ☎ 01:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

September 20, 2016? 10 months ago? Again, how did you find this needle in the haystack? Before the minor Tamil horror was created, Sivi would have lead searchers to Sivi the king in the epic Mahabharata. look in books "Sivi" + India refers to "good king Sivi" "fabled king Sivi", 4000 results the 2007 Tamil horror film directed by K. R. Senthil Natha gets no book hits at all. It's simply in the wrong place squatting on a reasonably well known character in India's national epic. Do you see any India project editors objecting to the film being titled (film)? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, as noted at the top of this subsection, Tbhotch linked to this even further above, presumably from memory. I didn't find it. Your final sentence speaks volumes. Instead of assessing per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria, you think whether "India project editors" object is how one should decide whether a given move is justified. If nobody notices and you get away with it says anything, then it's all good, right? --В²C ☎ 16:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Move to WP:AN?

Born2cycle, the thread is going to be archived very soon. This message that I'm writing would stall the archiving of this thread. May I move the thread to WP:AN please for bigger attention? George Ho (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No George Ho, you may not move the thread to AN. This is the correct venue; AN isn't. In addition, AN gets less attention than ANI. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks George Ho, but I think this is the right place. Not sure what to do here. We could provide (many) more examples of the disruptive behavior, but I don't know if that will help. --В²C ☎ 18:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... titles are getting messier. Discussion about titling the Fabergé eggs, which doesn't involve IIO, led to using parentheses for precision (via parenthetical disambiguation?). Also, after the discussion about notability and ambiguity at the "Notability" talk page, I see IIO expanding some articles, including ones that he started: [15][16]. Conflicting principles are... weirder or entangled or something? But actions based on such principles... I think there's enough evidence of his renaming things. As said before, I don't want to get too involved in IIO's contributions, especially after the Faberge egg discussion. However, I see the proposal below, but I'll hold off until I'm ready to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC); already did. 01:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Informal Collaborator

I just found a note on In ictu oculi's talk page asking him about his unexplained/undiscussed move of Informal collaborator to Informal collaborator (East Germany) [17]. Typical. I reverted it. [18]. --В²C ☎ 05:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact when you check the history of the article you will realize that that this was a revert to the longstanding title of the article which was only recently changed. WP:BRD covers this case. The next revert (yours) goes into editwaring territory. The change to Informal collaborator should have been subject to a WP:RM. Agathoclea (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agathoclea is probably correct in this case, User:Born2cycle To go over the sequence of events.

• The article was created in October 2014‎ by User:Charles01, under the name Informal collaborators (East Germany), and it kept that title for 2+ years.
• On 16 February 2017‎, User:Korny O'Near WP:BOLDly moved the article to Informal collaborator with an edit summary of "Simplified name - no need for disambiguation", and fine.
• On 20 April 2017, User:In ictu oculi moved the article to Informal collaborator (East Germany) with an edit summary of "revert move". This would probably be proper under WP:BRD, and of course the next step under WP:BRD is to go to discussion. (IMO FWIW User:In ictu oculi should have have been less terse.)
• But it didn't go to discussion. Instead, on 2 May 2017‎ you moved the article back to Informal collaborator with an edit summary of "Revert undiscussed/unjustified move - unnecessary disambiguation". This is move warring, a subset of edit warring. And you also didn't open a discussion even then.

And, you know, fine. It was just a second reversion, things happen fast here, it was different editor who made the first move, it's hard to always do the exact right thing by the letter, sometimes one forgets to check the move log, and so forth.

But here's thing: you stand by this and avow that you'd do it again. That's very different from "Oops, sorry".

At User talk:In ictu oculi#Your "informal collaborator" move, we've discussed the title of this article. My conclusion is that possibly "Stasi informers" would possibly be the best title, but that Informal collaborators (East Germany) would be at any rate be more informative than Informal collaborators... it's all at that linked thread. It's a point that reasonable people could disagree on and discuss, and to your credit you have engaged and explained your thinking.

But you appear to be standing by your point "I am correct, period, and thus justified in rolling back".

As far as I know, we're only allowed to edit war on WP:BLP grounds. Expanding that to "WP:BLP, and titles with parenthetical elucidation further explaining what the article is about" would be a hard sell I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Born2cycle's move was the first reversion, not the second, given that In ictu oculi changed the article to a different name than the original one. Also, I didn't think my page move was that bold, since putting "(East Germany)" at the end of a name that doesn't require disambiguation is a clear violation of Wikipedia naming conventions. My rename was an obvious fix. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Welp OK then. "Obvious fix", okey-doke. Herostratus (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus and Agathoclea I can understand your reaction to my choice to revert in this case, but there are a few missing key pieces. I'll copy and update Herostratus's timeline accordingly.

• The article was created in October 2014‎ by User:Charles01, under the name Informal collaborators (East Germany), and it kept that title for 2+ years.
• On 17 October 2016, User:In ictu oculi ignores (deletes without responding, not even in the comment summary) a warning on his talk page to stop making unilateral potentially controversial moves.[19]
• On 16 February 2017‎, User:Korny O'Near WP:BOLDly moved the article to Informal collaborator with an edit summary of "Simplified name - no need for disambiguation", and fine.
• On 20 April 2017, User:In ictu oculi moved the article to Informal collaborator (East Germany) with an edit summary of "revert move". This would probably be proper under WP:BRD, and of course the next step under WP:BRD is to go to discussion. (IMO FWIW User:In ictu oculi should have have been less terse.)
• On 24 April 2017, User:In ictu oculi moved the article Easta to Easter (Kyary Pamyu Pamyu song) without discussion or explanation. [20]
• On 24 April 2017, User:Born2cycle reverts the undiscussed move of Easta [21] after leaving an explanation on the talk page before [22] and after [23] the revert.
• On 26 April 2017, IIO again ignores yet another warning on his talk page to stop making unilateral potentially controversial moves[24] by deleting it without response.
• On 26 April 2017, User:Born2cycle notifies IIO about this AN/I on his talk page [25].
• On 1 May 2017, User: Korny O'Near inquires about IIO's move on IIO's talk page [26].
• On 1 May 2017, after seeing the inquiry from User:Korny O'Near, User:Born2cycle reverts IIO's unexplained/undiscussed 26 April move, with an edit summary of "Revert undiscussed/unjustified move, and notes accordingly on IIO's talk page [27] (so not without discussion as previously accused).

As I noted below, if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted IIO's 27 April move so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here), I hope my choice is understandable. That said, I hear what you're saying and I'll try to be less hasty next time, even with IIO. --В²C ☎ 00:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Normally an issue related to an article is best copied to and discussed on the Talk page of the article, however with User:Born2cycle because they relate to his own positions on titling, I have moved his messages back from my Talk page to his own Talk page rather than the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: We've spoken about this before, and the customary place to raise problems with your edits is your talk page. It's hard not to see your refusal to discuss things there as an evasion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe the customary place to discuss edits to an article is the Talk page of the article. In this case for example the actual creator of the article who has expressed a preference for his title (which I restored) is on the article Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Deflection again. When you're causing the same problems across a number of pages, it is appropriate to bring this to you, rather than having to post the same thing across every page you've edited. There is nothing wrong with addressing the matter on your talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Another example: Tokin

Perusing IIO's talk page I found this interesting section: User_talk:In_ictu_oculi#Move_of_Tokin_to_Tokin_.28headwear.29 from the end of March. Yet another example of a dubious move by IIO with no justification/explanation (and certainly no discussion)[28], an inquiry from a user (Nihonjoe), again very cryptic responses from IIO, until finally Nihonjoe essentially shrugs his shoulders ("It's fine"). Can't really blame him, but now we have yet another case where we have a dab page instead of the primary topic at the base name. Instead of reverting it, since there was some discussion (albeit after the move), I went ahead and created an RM request for this one: Talk:Tokin_(headwear)#Requested move 4 May 2017. --В²C ☎ 21:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Another example: James Taylor at Christmas

So the lowest fruit on this tree can be found on IIO's talk page, it turns out.

• IIO moves James Taylor at Christmas to At Christmas (James Taylor album) with no explanation or discussion, much less an RM[29] (as usual)
• Kellymoat inquires about this on IIO's talk page User_talk:In_ictu_oculi#At_Christmas_.28James_Taylor_album.29. No response from IIO.
• StartCheerspeaksnewslostwars reverts IIO's move with edit summary, "this obviously should have been an RM" [30].

By the way, IIO also edited the At Christmas dab page, changing the references to the article accordingly [31]. Nobody ever undid this, until I just did[32].

Not only are there countless examples of these unilateral moves, so many of them demonstrate bad judgement. Being BOLD is one thing, but this is ridiculous, and causes a lot of work for a lot of people. --В²C ☎ 22:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been tied to In ictu oculi's move of At Christmas (album) to At Christmas (Sara Evans album), which I've just reverted.[33] In short, it looks like he moved the James Taylor article to an incorrect title to justify adding additional disambiguation to the Sara Evans album (and created a incomplete dab issue by not redirecting At Christmas (album) to the dab page). This is unfortunately a pattern; last year he created Toil (Tolstoy book)[34] to justify moving Toil (album);[35][36] as it turns out the book is not by Tolstoy and is not titled "Toil".[37] Cleaning that up considerable work. It's disappointing to see that this habit has continued.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

OK User:Born2cycle but I have a couple questions. One thing is -- a person moved an article. I mean OK, maybe they should have initiated an RM. But isn't WP:BOLD in play? Moves are harder to undo so I can certainly see an argument that its not. So I don't know, I'm just asking. If not, maybe we should write this down somewhere, if it isn't already.

The other thing is, how do you know that it is James Taylor at Christmas and not At Christmas (James Taylor album)? I'm asking. User:Kellymoat seemed pretty sure ("The actual title is James Taylor at Christmas"). The cover does indeed say "James Taylor at Christmas". How is it different from At Christmas (album)? The cover of that says "Sara Evens At Christmas". Is it the capitalization of "at"? I'm asking.

Why is it Greatest Hits (Spice Girls album) when the cover says "Spice Girls Greatest Hits"? I don't know. It looks like a lot of album articles don't start out with the artis'ss name. I guess that's because the artist's name is usually there to tell the person buying the record who made it rather than being part of the title.

I guess in this case it is different? Is it the lowercase "a"? But a lot of albums use various kinds of typographies, all caps or whatever. Is it that "X at Christmas" makes a grammatical sentence? In that case shouldn't Go Girl Crazy! be "The Dictators Go Girl Crazy!"? On the Threshold of a Dream -> "The Moody Blues On the Threshold of a Dream" and so forth? "Spice Girls Greatest Hits". But then we do have The Monkees Present not "Present (Monkees album)". So it's messy I guess.

But so anyway:

• A person moved James Taylor at Christmas to At Christmas (James Taylor album).
• Another person didn't like that and inquired at the first person's talk page. (They could have brought it up at the article talk page, possibly filed an RM, but OK it's all good)
• No reply after a while, so moved it back.
• Bob's your uncle.

What's the problem? Looks like it worked out, to me. It's only a problem if James Taylor at Christmas is so obviously correct that only a moron, troll, or madman could think otherwise. Is it? Herostratus (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Discogs (which is my personal usual go-to source for album info, although I don't know how much weight they really carry) has it as "At Christmas" (you can tell that they don't consider "James Taylor (2)" to be part of the title. If they did they would have it as "James Taylor - James Taylor At Christmas". Compare Jan And Dean Meet Batman, where they do consider the artist name to be part of the title -- it says "Jan And Dean ‎– Jan And Dean Meet Batman".) Just to point another reason why the complaint, which seems to come down to "Look what he did, he again made a move that just obviously wrong" is arguable. Herostratus (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: However, AllMusic definately goes with "James Taylor at Christmas". Amazon also appears to be in that camp -- or are they? I think Target and Barnes & Noble are though. And the James Taylor official site! And I think others. But not WalMart.

Oddly, we have James Taylor: A Christmas Album but A Christmas Album (Barbra Streisand album) and A Christmas Album (Amy Grant album) and A Christmas Album (Bright Eyes album). So maybe it's a James Taylor thing. Which doesn't affect the Italians. Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, it would be helpful if you read WP:RM. The main thing is that BOLD does not apply to moves if the move is "potentially controversial". When sources don't agree is one situation where you need an RM discussion to work it out, as a move without such discussion is potentially controversial. If somebody does a unilateral move once, it's not that big of a deal. If someone has a history of doing so, and has been reminded multiple times by multiple people that it's a policy violation but keeps doing it, that's a problem and why we're here. Its a problem not only because it's against policy but also because it sets misleading precedents and creates work for others. It's not that IIO is necessarily wrong in all of these unilateral move decisions, it's that they're not his decisions to make (that he has a history of often getting them wrong, doesn't help). Does that make sense? --В²C ☎ 04:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some. But WP:RMUM (part of WP:RM) says "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move... Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.". It is true that WP:RM#CM (which comes later) says "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if... Someone could reasonably disagree with the move."

So I dunno. It says two different, contradictory things, actually. The language could be tightened up too. You could read it as WP:RMUM being the controlling authority, sending people to WP:RM#CM if your bold move is reverted. Or it would certainly be reasonable read WP:RM#CM as at least indicating to use it right away if someone could reasonably disagree with the move. This would be common sense I think.

Here's how it worked for me recently regarding John Hancock Tower:

• It had been at John Hancock Tower a long time (looking at the log, I now see had gone though a quick move-revert cycle in 2016, but that doesn't matter)
• An editor (with his first edit FWIW) WP:BOLDly moved it to "200 Clarendon Street" in February 2017, with an edit summary of "The name of the building has changed to 200 Clarendon Street"
• Noticing this in April 2017, I moved it back (per WP:BRD), with an edit summary "What the name is is debatable, but it was apparently moved with no discussion. Let's move it back and have a discussion". And then I opened a discussion -- an advisory RM, here: Talk:John Hancock Tower#Requested move 23 April 2017, which I believe is the proper next step. Note that I opposed the move as nominator -- that's what an advisory nomination means. IMO an RM is (or sometimes can be) an invitation to talk and learn, not necessarily a courtroom of prosecution and defense. So I don't need to support the proposition in order to open the discussion. I could have been Neutral also.
• Nobody came -- including the original page mover -- so after I while I closed the RM myself and end of story. (Somebody might have come and said "No, it should be 200 Clarendon Street, because [data] and [strong argument]", and won the day. Would I have been upset? Of course not. It's a win for the project to get things correct is what matters.)

Anyway, this was easy. I didn't get upset or break a sweat. Yes it took a few minutes, but I could have made it pretty short by just saying "Moved, reverted per WP:BRD, advocates for the other name invited to make their case here". Takes 20 seconds. I could make up a template to paste in if I was doing it a lot, I guess.

Yes I had to wait a week for resolution. Oh well, that doesn't matter. But I don't move pages much. I can see how it would be a problem if it's holding up other work.

I mean, OK. If this user was doing this to dozens of articles a week and I was rolling them all back that would possibly be annoying. Yes I can see approaching him and saying "Look, I'm going to roll back every move you do and put it to RM. Would you mind just sending your desired moves to RM first, to save me that step"? and if they wouldn't, yeah that would suck. So I haven't walked a mile in your shoes. So I'm reluctant to criticize anyone when I haven't walked their path. Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As someone whose attempts to speak to IIO about such problems resulted in little change and eventually a request not to comment on his talk page anymore, I can confirm that it really is frustrating. The bigger problem with this particular move to me is that there was no reason for it, it was just a justification for adding more disambiguation to another article. Moving articles to inferior, uncommon, and even just plain wrong titles is a pattern with IIO; it's at least the 4th I can recall; 2 others came in the past year, and I'm willing to bet there are others.[38][39][40][41] It's a small percentage of his many edits, but it's still 4 articles that a not insignificant amount of time and effort to clean up, for no reason other that to justify IIO's titling preferences.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, Herostratus. WP:RMUM probably should be clarified to say "Anyone who has no reason to believe a particular title change might be controversial can be bold and move a page without discussing it first..." to be consistent with the other section. Among editors experienced with RM this is how it's generally understood. --В²C ☎ 16:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• By coincidence I just opened a thread on this at the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Submergence

So I just went to WP:RM and at the top I find this request:

===May 8, 2017===

• (Discuss) – Submergence (film) → Submergence – According to WP:PTM, partial title matches should not be on a disambiguation page when no possible confusion exists. A hatnote for submerge (disambiguation) should be enough. Timmyshin (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Immediately, I suspected... Sure enough, in the history of the current Submergence dab page is IIO's signature.

• Submergence was created as an article about the film on December 01, 2015 by Captain Assassin!
• There are edits from at least 10 different people between December 01, 2015 and September 19, 2016.
• On Sep 19, 2016 In ictu oculi, without discussion or explanation, moves Submergence to Submergence (film) and...
• ... on Sep 19, 2016 IIO creates the dab page at Submergence with a link to Deep-submergence rescue vehicle as well as to the film [42].

As usual, IIO demonstrates no interest in questioning how often people look for the vehicle using "submergence", whether one or the other is a primary topic, whether it's even appropriate to create a two-entry dab page in this case, especially when one of the two entries is partial dab, much less discuss these questions with his colleagues.

IIO's unilateral decisions in this area create a lot of work for others, as in this case where somebody didn't notice the problem until 8 months later, and now we have to have an RM discussion about undoing what he did, instead of discussing it first. --В²C ☎ 19:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well yeah. I see what you're saying.

On the other hand, the concept of Submersion is a very big deal... having do with submarines, sea diving, coastal archeology, and more.... and closely related to Immersion, also a huge deal. And Submergence is close to this... I would be surprised if many searchers on "Submergence" weren't looking for Submersion. These are two words with very similar construction and meaning, easy to confuse.

Against this, Submergence (film) is just a movie. Not out yet, it may tank and be forgotten. Even if not, in the long term is it the dominant subject? (Page views right now and for the next few years will probably be elevated, true.)

So IMO it is useful in some way to open a conversation about this. IIO's method of doing so is to just move stuff. Since this is demonstrated to be driving you (and apparently some other editors) to claw at the draperies, it's probably not a good approach, since it is leading to contention. Even if he was justified (which maybe) it is causing contention, on at least reasonable grounds, so he should stop. Whether he should be just advised to do so or enjoined from doing so is above my pay grade.

But just to point out, on the merits he has reasonable case. I would have done similar maybe. IMO the dab page would point maybe to the two items "Submergence (film)" and "Submersion", and the wiktionary link, and maybe Deep-submergence vehicle and Deep-submergence rescue vehicle too although those could be a See Also, I dunno. 'course, I like dab pages.

But one way or the other, just leaving the yet-to-be-released-and-may-tank film as the main meaning for "Submergence"... not too sure about that. Maybe. Matter of opinion, I guess... pageview stats could offer some enlightenment. So anyway IIO is to be credited for getting things moving. I do agree that he needs to do it opening an conversation though. Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote elsewhere recently, the issue is not that IIO's unilateral decisions are always wrong, it's that he's making decisions (alone) that are not his (alone) to make. Once an article is at a title changing that title is much more likely than not to be contentious. After all, somebody put it that original title, likely with some thought and consideration. Perhaps things have changed and there are other uses to consider now, but the original article might still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. These are issues that by definition are supposed to be decided by consensus in an RM discussion. As to your points about this particular case, you might want to make them at the actual RM. --В²C ☎ 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: ban In ictu oculi from moving articles without going through RM

There is no consensus to enact the sanction as proposed.

A majority of editors participating in this discussion supported some form of page-moving restriction for In ictu oculi (IIO), with more supporting SmokeyJoe's proposal than the original proposal. However, opponents of these proposals raised two points of significant concern. First, several editors in opposition to the proposal suggested that, even with SmokeyJoe's narrower proposal, it is against the spirit of WP:BOLD to ban IIO from making page moves that have not seen prior opposition. Second, several editors also commented on the circumstances of this proposal and opined that it would be unfair to impose a sanction upon IIO without a commensurate sanction upon В²C. Other alternative proposals have been suggested but those are unlikely to receive sufficient discussion within the heading of B²C's original proposal.

So I'm closing this discussion as no consensus for B²C and SmokeyJoe's proposals. However, editors - other than IIO and B²C themselves - are welcome to propose alternative editing restrictions that cater for the abovementioned concerns. Deryck C. 21:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Proposal: Per the above discussions In ictu oculi doesn't recognize or ignores when article moves are potentially controversial and does it often enough for it to be disruptive. In addition, he tends to create unnecessary and trivial dab pages. I hereby propose an indefinite ban on In ictu oculi from moving articles (changing titles) without going through the process at WP:RM.

• Support as nom. I don't think anything else will stop him from continuing to engage in the disruptive behavior which he has done for years. --В²C ☎ 18:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Too many controversial moves without discussion, concerns have been raised on his talk page for years and no changes. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, having undone some of his controversial/"what the?" moves (most were months ago) myself. Ss112 04:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, largely. Must use WP:RM (including Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves), unless:
  (1) The page is under 100 days old and he is the sole non-minor author.
  (2) The page is in his userspace.
  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's reasonable. That would mean he can still create dab pages too, with the (disambiguation) parenthetical. He just can't disambiguate the title of the article at the base name to make room for the dab page at the base name without an RM discussion to establish a lack of primary topic. --В²C ☎ 05:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Noticed this after reading Tbhotch's !vote below, so commenting. (1) is a reasonable exception, but (2) falls outside the proposed parameters of the ban, which is about "moving articles". If what is meant is publishing userspace drafts, then it should be a given that it is an exception, as moving it out of the userspace is the first time it is given its "article title"; if it refers to non-articles in the userspace, it is already not covered, as B2C's proposal relates to articles, not user pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, (2) in SmokeyJoe's addendum is redundant since the original proposed restriction was not intended to prohibit moves from user space into article space for the first time (after all creating articles in article space is not prohibited so a copy/paste from user space to a new article in article space is clearly allowed and it's effectively the same thing as moving from user space except moving also retains history). But, whether an article is not an article while it's still in user space is something of a semantic thing and I don't see how redundant clarification can hurt. --В²C ☎ 00:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(2) Redundant with regard to your intent, but I've seen people get in trouble for violating unintended letter or words in ANI topic bands before, commonsense not invoked. Of course he can move and rename in his own userspace. Renaming draft articles in other's userspace, or others draftspace page would be a violation, broadly construing the proposed ban. (1) is important. There is no real intention to straitjacket IIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Bold moves of low-traffic pages has long been considered perfectly acceptable, and this seems to be the case with virtually all, if not all, the examples listed above. No page move is controversial until someone opposes it, so the moves in question would only be controversial if IIO was edit-warring over them, or was moving them against the consensus of a previous RM. I know from personal experience that IIO has more respect for discussion and consensus on these matters, and if anytging is overly careful when it comes to following the proper process. I seem to recall an incident from four years ago when I BOLDly moved a page, and a sockpuppet of the banned user JoshuSasori RMed the page back (because IPs and new accounts can't unilaterally undo page moves), and IIO, despite himself, actually supported the RM on procedural grounds, even hough he agreed with my unilateral move on the substance and knew that the OP was a sock. Forgive me if I'm misremembering; I'll find the exact diff if anyone needs it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I find the recent behaviour of IIO unexpected and out of character. It is as if he has tired of discussions and is no longer reading them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes @SmokeyJoe: I've dropped in to read them, but what can I do. It's the same couple of editors following me to pages they have no interest or involvement in and hunting for something from 10 months or a year ago to offend among 1,000s of edits. I can't win. If I wait for the templates to readjust and leave a decent period for someone following me to revert then I'm guilty of having not yet made the dab page, if I make the dab page I'm guilty of making the dab page. You can see from B2C's edit history that a substantial proportion of his limited contributions to article space are following my work. With the system being that repeated bites of the cherry will eventually "get" someone, what would you have me do, defend and justify in detail the last 1% of my dab work. Yes I'm tired, but more tired of having B2C's shadow. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A page move is easily reverted if not needed, while every time I participate in a RM I feel like wasting time. Let's not create more RM. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Fewer page moves, I would prefer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... what!? What about naming conventions? Our article titles are not all automatically perfect. If they can be improved, they should be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Incessant fiddling of titles, of article urls, in pursuit of the nebulous concept of perfection, especially when by editors with no interest in the actual articles concerned, is disruptive. Fiddling of the title, url, links, lengthy narrow-focus discussions, repeatedly, in the absence of a non-trivial good reason, is disruption. The relevant policy line is found at WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Perfection is a goal or direction, not a destination that can ever be actually reached. But the alternative to aiming for perfection is not aiming at all, but instead going every which way, haphazardly. It's chaos. And, in the context of WP titles, much more resource and time consuming. In this context we have two very different concepts of perfection: 1) every title meets WP:CRITERIA as well as possible, including concision and being recognizable to those familiar with the topic, or 2) every title is recognizable to everyone, even those who are not familiar with the topic. These two destinations are incompatible. From Chicago we cannot head towards both Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. And if some of us are trying to go to one while others to the other it's not going to be pretty, while those who are fine with staying in Chicago are going to wonder what all the bickering is about. I think trying to make every title recognizable to everyone is too nebulous a destination to even aim for. Not that WP:CRITERIA is perfect! But at least in most cases we get a solid answer out of it. With "make it fully recognizable to everyone" there are a myriad of valid choice for almost every title. It's unworkable. That's why I push us to aim CRITERIA compatibility. It's not perfection, but it's doable. --В²C ☎ 00:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The operative word in WP:TITLECHANGES is "controversial". Nothing there applies to changes that are not already controversial before they are made. WP:AGF takes precedence here; unless it can be demonstrated that IIO probably knew that one or more of his changes would be controversial before he made them, then unilateral BOLD changes are not a problem meriting a formal sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have the ban with my exceptions apply to every user. BOLD page moves on old or other people's new pages is at least confronting, and worst disruptive. Better to ask the author for agreement, if they agree it will not be a unilateral bold page move. If it is old, lay out the one paragraph proposal in a formal RM, and encourage non-admins, even if involved, to close and enact all one week old unopposed RM proposals. An articulated rename proposal made after a week is way better that a bold move with no real explanation that anyone can respond to, short of this sort of drama. There are some few expert editors, particularly with DAB pages, who this shouldn't interfere with, but I think it is clear that IIO can attempt everything he wants to do more collegially by using the RM processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"Better to ask the author for agreement, if they agree ..." – Totally inconsistent with WP:OWN, WP:EDITING, WP:BOLD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all,  User:SMcCandlish. It does assume that the author is the only other interested party. If they don't agree, use WP:RM. If they do, it's by agreement. EDITING and BOLD are not good for page moves. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"It does assume that the author is the only other interested party", which is never a safe assumption and an assumption we're directed to not make, by the policies and principles I just cited.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It is probable, for new pages, but importantly it is not to be treated as an assumption. The point is that before acting on an urge to do a BOLD page move, you raise the issue on the talk page. It need not be a formal RM, but why not? After 1 week, you *can* reasonably assume other interested editors will have responded. If there is no opposition, close your own RM and do the move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support until demonstrated While it is more work, better to set them up for success by restricting them to RM's then allowing to fail by either doing what they want or preventing them from moving at all. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately. This has been a recurring problem for In ictu oculi for many years now, and it appears to be escalating. At the center of this is his idiosyncratic preference that most articles be given parenthetical disambiguation, which conflicts with how most others view the recommendations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DAB, etc. He's been making undiscussed moves to unnecessarily disambiguated titles - and leaving the base name redirecting to the disambiguated form - since at least early 2014.[43][44][45] He's said his intention is to allow others to object before creating a dab page,[46] and to be fair he follows through in many cases, but in many others, the problematic title just remains in place forever.[47][48] I've spoken to him about this,[49] and many others have as well. I've also spoken to him about the fact that when he does create dab pages, he often (almost always) neglects to format them correctly.[50][51][52][53] Unfortunately, In ictu doesn't take such discussions well; he accuses others of following him around, aggressive behavior, picking fights, and even stalking.[54][55][56][57][58][59][60] I take this as an indication that he's avoiding the RM process and just unilaterally making controversial moves to avoid scrutiny. He's told me[61][62] and others not to post on his talk page, so unfortunately dialog isn't going to resolve this issue and further steps are necessary. Considering the vast scope of the problem - there are likely thousands of articles that he's moved to problematic titles - I think it's wise to restrict In ictu's move privileges as proposed. This is unfortunate, as In ictu oculi is a valuable editor when working on article content, but this has been a problem for a very long time. His input will still be valuable to the RM process when he uses it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I also support SmokeyJoe's alternate proposal as a second choice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support, I once had a similar interaction with In ictu oculi, where my Patliputra Medical College and Hospital page move was reverted by In ictu oculi because it "appeared" to them that there exists another college with a similar name. I requested them to provide a source for the same and after recieving no reply, I reverted their page move. Now having read the thread and gone through contributions of In ictu oculi, I do think the user has an unwanted special affection for disambiguations. I feel the user has good knowlege of the wikipedia policies (including page move policies) but they prefer to game the system. The ban (if imposed) will still allow the user to use their experience and make page moves using RM, while at the same time prevent them from gaming the system. Pratyush (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose All this is trivial in terms of content. WP is edited for our users, and I see no case where the titles would confuse a user; some of the specific ones like Bombay Mail have a reasonable justification . Yes, it's technically against our rules, but with so many real problems at WP, this does not seem worth bothering with. A little more tolerance from others would solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If it were really trivial, that would be the end of it. But with thousands of these changes every month, over the course of many years, becomes a serious problem for others to clean up. As someone who has devoted much of my time to the RM process so that readers can locate our content, I don't consider the vast amount of time I've spent cleaning up after In ictu oculi trivial. And there's no indication it will stop through our normal mechanisms of discussion and consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support - Even with the titling mess in general, and even when IIO does a lot of good, I hate to admit that IIO's unilateral moves are becoming more troublesome and tiring. I trust ourselves the community to resolve this matter immediately. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

– On second thought, I'll try to support SmokeyJoe's alt proposal. After seeing more newer contributions/edits and comments, probably best to allow IIO to do some moves under special conditions. George Ho (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I do recall this editor in past, unilaterally moving articles from non-diacritics to diacritics titles. These unilateral page moves, seem a continuing pattern. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I was actually incredibly surprised it took so long for anyone to explicitly name the elephant in the room. No, that is the opposite of what happened. Back in the bad old days of the "diacritic wars", several users (now mostly sitebanned; Kauffner, JoshuSasori, LittleBenW...) were going around unilaterally removing diacritics in contravention of Wikipedia's style guidelines. IIO frequently responded by opening RMs to move pages back to their properly (and stably) diacriticized titles. If there were instances of the reverse, I would hazard to guess they were exceptions rather than the rule, and I would need to see evidence to believe otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I remember him creating many articles (without diacritics titles) and then immediately moving them to diacritics titles. Several years ago, I described IIO as a train gathering speed (partially due to support from others & partially due to little opposition) during those disputes. I suggested that should he come to a sudden stop, it would be a quite a train crash. It appears that 'crash' is now in progress. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... so you are complaining about him creating articles with the wrong titles, realizing his mistake, and self-correcting? Who are you to criticize him for that? I thought you had created articles without diacritics in their titles, and had good, PAG-based reasoning for doing so, and IIO had come out of nowhere and moved the articles without discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm continuing to support the proposed page move ban & will not be changing my stance. You're free to continue trying to persuade me to change my recommendation. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I created French Polish and Vietnamese bios in 2010? Yes. I may be taking a back seat on this, but having looked in cannot not comment on this editor's grudge. Firstly "diacritics" is a non-issue for 99% of the editors on en.wp. It is only a small minority such as GoodDay (see block Log) for whom it has been an issue. Secondly, how many 1000 bio articles have I created? (see contributions) Anyone creating bio articles knows to create them with both full Unicode "François" and ASCII/tabloid "Francois" so that both Francois does not redlink but leads to François. [I'm surprised to even see this editor resurface, has someone been canvassing by email?] In ictu oculi (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem here, is that you have a tendency to ignore folks, when they're requesting that you stop changing titles of articles. It comes across as arrogant on your part & thus off-putting. Even in this ANI report, you're continuing with an attitude that you're right & most of us are wrong. Either you go the RM route from now on 'or' eventually end up being reported to ANI by someone else. When you have a big number of editors supporting a page move-ban on you? it's best you start taking a gander into the mirror. You can either help yourself or sink yourself. Trust me, the Bunker mentality isn't the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesus ... I did take a look per IIO's invitation, and ... User:GoodDay, after an indef site-ban not repealed for a year, why would you even want to wade back into the diacritic wars, let alone restart them in a venue that (prior to your involvement) had no direct connection to them? And I'm saying this as someone who is in the small minority to whom IIO referred. I don't care about them in real life, but a diacritic warrior on Wikipedia (who had less respect for MOS than I do) started harassing me both on-wiki (hounding, later posting my home address in multiple places) and off-wiki (contacting my workplace, and doing stuff on various external sites that I don't want to go into). Also, you appear to be in violation of the same TBAN that led to your earlier SBAN. It's not clear that you remembered the ban when you first posted here (your block log is clean for three years), but after IIO explicitly mentioned your having been blocked over diacritics, you should have shut up and/or stricken your earlier, TBAN-violating posts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Shit. I didn't notice that, apparently, the ban was "suspended for one year" last fall, according to the entry on WP:RESTRICT. I haven't located the actual discussion and/or ArbCom decision that led to the suspension, and the concept seems rather fishy. Was the ban suspended to allow for hounding of users wih whom he disputed years ago over the diacritics "problem"? Or is this discussion in violation of some kind of suspended sentence/probation? Anyway, striking for the time being. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The concern here, is IIO's tendency to 'move pages' without going the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as I have interacted with IIO in the past and have a great deal of respect for this editor. I haven't sifted through all the moves in detail, but from what I can see this thread is an over-reaction by B2C. Naturally there will be disagreements among editors about what is best in any given situation, but I see nothing here that merits any kind of ban. IIO and B2C have different views on titling, which is a more complex subject than some would have it. Omnedon (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It could be called an over-reaction by B2C, and I think I usually agree with IIO and disagree with B2C on traditional titling battlelines, but here B2C is right. There is a simple principle: When asked to stop doing certain BOLD things, you must stop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, that would be true but assumes that my editing has not become progressively more cautious (and my contributions reduced) as B2C's contributions become ever more closely following my own edits. I have reduced work on disambiguation, I have created less dab pages, I have erred on the side of caution, as for example in the last 10 dab/move/edits above when not immediately creating the Bombay Mail dab page despite the need for one, to allow B2C to revert where he wishes to do so. In fact although edits following myself make a good proportion of B2C's article space edits, B2C only reverts a small proportion of disambiguation work. It is difficult to fully anticipate correctly everything B2C will object to. Effectively it means ceasing disambiguation work in anticipation. If B2C was representative of norms in the encyclopedia then fair enough, but [ [Talk:Thriller_(Michael_Jackson_album)#Requested_move_15_March_2017]] does not represent a normative position. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I definitively agree B2C is not normal, and that his blinkered relentless pushing of minimalist titling theories are disruptive time wasting for others, but that does not justify any bold page move that someone else would object to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Omnedon: Actually, opposing this proposal based solely on the principal that IIO is a respectable editor whom you like is not a good idea, as the proposal is not all that restrictive to begin with, and most reputable editors have found themselves subjected to such sanctions at one point or another anyway. I think B2C's actions in this thread have been ... somewhat questionable (honestly I didn't notice it because I was active on ANI and a familiar name showed up -- I noticed it because of the insane number of subheadings), but that also is not the best rationale for opposing the limited sanction. Note that this advice comes from someone who actually is opposed to the sanction, for what it's worth. I think a strong warning about making potentially problematic moves, and perhaps unnecessary disambiguation, would be more appropriate. I'm just speaking my opinion because if I only spoke my opinion when it undermined "support" !votes (see above and below) that would make me a terrible hypocrite. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hiriji88, you don't seem to have quite gotten what I wrote; my oppose is not based solely on my opinion of IIO. I have looked and I see nothing here that merits a ban. I've expressed my view here briefly. This does not belong at ANI, and IIO does not deserve a block. That many editors are subjected to sanctions at one time or another doesn't make this acceptable. Omnedon (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Well, I am currently having similar conflict with regards in "a user who moves pages without requesting and respecting WP:RM discussions" and I think it's really kinda rude to Wikipedia guidelines on requesting move to not respect it or discussions on WP:RM (especially applied to controversial moves). ~PogingJuan 03:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The link is malformed, so here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BoybandPH naming and Hollyckuhno ([63]). --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that PogingJuan is lucky he wasn't site-banned for some of the shit he pulled a few months back on a certain BLP talk page and a couple of ANI threads spun out thereof (veiled threats of off-wiki violence, insincere claims that said threats totally weren't meant as the threats they looked like, despite repeated refusal to strike them as allegedly unintended threats). He really shouldn't be !voting to apply sanctions to other editors, especially not based solely on personal opinions and general principals that aren't widely accepted by the community. If Hollyckuhno deserves a TBAN, that's Hollyckuhno's problem, not IIO's. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well, after looking into this a bit, I suggest that both plaintiff and defendant be enjoined from moving pages without permission. If not that, then neither should be enjoined, as that implies too much fault for one side in an ongoing squabble where it's not clear where the main fault lies.

After all no one should be moving pages without a discussion, if there's any chance that someone might object. Both plaintiff and defendant seem to have a tendency to conflate "looks fine to me" with "no one could object" (which is a common human failing). Points against User:In ictu oculi are well taken, but at the same time User:Born2cycle is on occasion a little rigid and sometimes of the mind "there's no dispute here, and we won't have a discussion: I'm just right, is all" when there possibly is reasonable basis for discussion. In fairness to User:Born2cycle he has thought about these issues a lot, and cogently. That doesn't necessarily make him always right though.

All this is a violation of WP:RELAX as User:DGG points out. I would suggest to all parties that titles aren't that important, as long as the proper redirects and hatnotes are in place. I don't think that that will be taken to heart, though. I honestly don't know know how to solve this difficult and distressing standoff between two veteran, productive, and respected editors. But just an all around reminder as I said: no one should be moving pages if anyone might object, and "anyone might object" should be considered liberally. Herostratus (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus: I understand what you're saying, but I want to reiterate that the problems of In ictu oculi's edits go well beyond any dispute between him and B2C. We're talking about thousands of bad moves and all the problems associated with them: misnamed articles, misleading redirects, hindered navigation, and poorly formatted dab pages, plus all the community time spent cleaning up after (if it's ever cleaned up at all). Individually the issues are minor, but when compounded thousands and thousands of times, despite repeated requests to stop, it's not a minor problem anymore.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe you are right, User:Cuchullain. I just worry that the line between "misnamed article" and "article named differently from what I, personally, would prefer" is getting a little muddied. If I move New Orleans to the The Big Easy, that is a misnamed article. Disagreements about what might or not not be the best way to elucidate or expand on the information in the title, and if so what format should be used... that's a different thing. Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, the point you keep missing or overlooking is that whether expanding a title for elucidation is acceptable is a well known point of contention (or "likely to be contentious" in WP:RM parlance), but IIO regularly makes such title changes unilaterally anyway. I don't. --В²C ☎ 20:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you don't but at the same you reserve the right to, since you refused to agree not to when I suggested it informally as a peace compromise. And I mean look at #Informal Collaborator right above. It was you who was move warring and demonstrating an attitude of "There'll be no discussion, I'm right and that's an end to it" even when IIO's move supporting the original page name demonstrated that there was opposition to your version, from him.

I mean... if, has been avowed by you and others, IIO just off the reservation, then it is understandably maddening to have to engage him over and over on stuff he's never going to get his way on anyway. However, I'm not convinced it is that simple, is all. Herostratus (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, I think that's the ticket. The problem seems to have gotten worse lately with Iio making more and more moves of the type that fail when they go to RM or face scrutiny. And there have been some that aren't just misnamed, but are flat wrong (ie this). At any rate, under these sanctions, he'd still be able to propose and discuss any move he wanted through the process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Herostratus, of course I agree to not makes unilateral moves that are potentially contentious, which is all I've ever asked IIO to do. But I reserve the same right that everyone else has to revert undiscussed/unsupported moves (including reverting alleged unexplained/undiscussed "reverts" of well-supported moves made two months earlier, which is what happened at Informal collaborator). IIO has repeatedly demonstrated either an inability or an unwillingness to make distinctions between potentially contentious and clearly uncontentious title changes, and often ignores requests to provide explanation. --В²C ☎ 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if you don't make unilateral moves, then what's this? I gather that your feeling is "well, that's not really a possibly-discussable move, it's just a correction, like fixing a spelling error". But it's not that simple I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Herostratus, what that is is a revert of yet another unilateral move by IIO that came to my attention when I saw it questioned on his talk page a few days after I opened this AN/I. It was just a few weeks after he deleted (without responding; not even in the comment summary) another reminder from me for him to stop making potentially controversial unilateral moves[64]. Perhaps it's a bit unfair but hopefully understandable: if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted it so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not to engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here)... again, I hope my response is understandable. Does that answer your question? --В²C
    • Yes it does, to some degree. Yes this diff (IIO blanking a talk page thread instead of responding) is something I hate to see (although, heh, you did it to me just recently (no hard feelings)). It may be justified if person feels they were being hectored (which I'm not accusing you of).

Yes, though, I get it. As a practical matter, it is both human and functional to treat people differently based on their history. You're saying you wouldn't have rolled back if it was someone else... OK. That is reasonable if justified. Whether it is justified I'm not sure. You guys are having a difficult time getting along and respecting each other's point of view, I guess. This I think is a problem that needs to be resolved somehow, and I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward.

One reason I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward is than on the merits I have have issues with some specifics of your approach to titling in general, and I fear that your "winning" this case will further valorize that point of view... But also, the sight of two veteran, dedicated, able, and highly respected colleagues at loggerheads in the manner distresses me, and I would prefer a win-win to a win-lose outcome. That may not be in the cards, but lose-lose may be the best option available... Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, at least I responded/explained in my edit summary, right? And I've responded/explained to all of your queries. You can't say I'm ignoring you. I think the problem IIO and I have in getting along, to the extent that it exists, is not central to this AN/I. Even though I started it, I acknowledged the rocky history I have with IIO in the opening sentence here, and let's not forget that there were at least two previous similar AN/Is in which I was not involved, not to mention all of the accounts relayed in the Support !vote comments logged here. I'm open to getting along better with IIO, and any assistance in that direction. That said, IIO's disruptive behaviorial issues that are the subject of this AN/I are really the only serious issues I have with him. There are quite a few other eidtors I disagree with just as often, but don't have any working issues with them like I do with IIO. By the way, have you seen his comments and my responses in the Bombay Train and "Let's look at one ..." subsections above? I think they help explain why we need some action here. --В²C ☎ 18:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have responded and explained, and this is to your credit. As to rest, OK; I'll wait for what others say. Herostratus (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait to hear what others have to say about what? I'm far from perfect, but while many here have confirmed that IIO's move behavior is problematic, none besides you have even suggested that I do anything close to what IIO does with respect to unilateral moves. --В²C ☎ 16:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not at all necessary that the move-related behavioral issues raised about IIO must be mirrored exactly by B2C. If B2C also exhibits move-related behavioral problems, even if they are different ones, that is sufficient for remedial action to be taken with regard to them, whether or not any ais taken with regard to IIO's. I've addressed this with specifics in longer commentary below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral as proposed, but support SmokeyJoe's proposal. As I said above, the move-pattern is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more serious problem with his editing, but they were decided to be off-topic, so I will assume this ban (if applied) will reduce the gaming from his part. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support this user has already way too often renamed pages when unwarranted (particularly to add unnecessary parentheticals) and should at the very least discuss controversial moves before performing them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Another important point to remember here: there is no WP:DEADLINE. If an editor believes a page to be at a suboptimal title, it won't kill anyone to wait a week or so for an RM to confirm this. bd2412 T 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. IIO makes controversial moves without discussion to obscure pages and they often aren't picked up on for quite a while. Considering his relatively narrow view of what constitutes primary topics, I would much rather he be made to put them up for discussion first. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mutual and temporary manual-move ban, or just a mutual but final warning. A three-month ban seems to be pretty customary. SmokeyJoe's terms in the third non-nominator comment seem to be the right approach. Over the last decade+, I've seen both of these editors improve in various ways, and yet both dig their heels in on certain views and tactics that don't mesh with the consensus approach to article titling. One thing I've noticed – and directly experienced! – is that a limited-time ban on making manual moves forces one to think more carefully about moves, their rationales, their impacts, and (frankly) the basic human politics involved in getting consensus. I rarely do manual moves these days, and I know other editors given short-term bans who have also taken to using RM religiously. We're here at ANI to remedy not punish.

  The complainant here (B2C) has a long history of problematic RM behavior himself, going back to at least 2010, and resulting in an ARBCOM case (which warned and admonished him by name) in 2012, another admin warning in 2013, an ANI sanction in 2013, an AN case, etc. I could diff-pile all that stuff and more (and maybe doing so would be deserved, given the mountain of questionable or at least differently interpretable evidence dumped here to demonize IIO, with little attention paid to the wealth of "B2C has unclean hands" material that could be dug up. I actually wrote most of that, but I don't think it's productive of resolution, so I scrapped it.

  Look, this two-editor deathmatch just needs cold water dumped on it. B2C's "my way or the highway" manner, incivility, and excessive devotion to WP:CONCISE as if it's the only one of the five WP:CRITERIA that really matters contrarian interpretations of WP:CRITERIA, all just desperately need to be given a long rest. So does IIO's "I'm pretending I can't hear any of you critics" act, and his similarly excessive insistence on leaping directly to parenthetical disambiguation (WP:PARENDIS) of and only of the WP:COMMONNAME, when the policy clearly favors avoiding disambiguation entirely by testing the available sourced names against the five CRITERIA (hint: COMMONNAME is not one of the criteria at all; it's just the first name to run through the actual CRITERIA tests as the most likely to fit them best). Only if that fails should we resort to disambiguating the COMMONNAME, and the policy is clear that we try WP:NATURALDISambiguation of that when possible, and only if that fails do we resort of parenthetic.

  Both editors have been failing to be civilly open to others' views on such matters, and abusing WP:BRD as a WP:FILIBUSTER weapon – concerns raised about article title disputes since 2012 in the WP:ARBATC ArbCom case. If curing these problems requires a two-editor break from moving articles around at will, then so be it.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [Revised to be less specific about interpretational conflicts, which aren't the issue here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)]

  SMcCandlish, please don't misrepresent my views on title decision making. I give all WP:CRITERIA due weight and treat concision primarily as a tie breaker. That is, if all other criteria don't indicate a particular title between two, then concision kicks in preferring the more concise. I can't deny my past issues and I'm certainly not perfect now but have I done anything in the past (say) year that warrants some kind of sanction as you seem to suggest? If so, please identify that behavior because I have no idea what you're talking about, besides stuff from long ago. And if there is anything recent how about bringing it to my attention on my talk page first, to give me a chance to resolve it? I came here to AN/I regarding IIO's behavior because he ignored attempts from me and others to address his behavior on his talk page as documented above. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  @Born2cycle: This is a red herring (though I've replaced the policy-interpretation comment, above, with something more general). Also, protesting your innocence and encouraging people to provide further evidence against you is not advisable. The principal issue with your RM-related behavior in this proceeding and the matters behind it (for way more than, say, the past year) is WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF/WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:BATTLEGROUND-related. It's your failure to change after ArbCom admonitions [65][66], admin warnings [67], a narrowly escaped topic ban from move discussions, at WP:AN [68], contingent upon promises that you have not kept [69] (though some improvement regarding some of them is observable), and WP:AN sanctions [70], all about your move-related behavior pattern. It's not about policy interpretation at all, and these arguably stack up (among other incidents/warnings I've not cited) to suggest an indefinite T-ban from RM, though I advocated a short one or just a final warning.

  Have you done anything worthy of sanctioning lately? This direct accusation of bad faith of at least two kinds, without any evidence, in this very discussion, appears to qualify, both as to normal ANI admin civility enforcement and – very particularly with regard to you – per the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBATC#Remedies, in a "title warring" ArbCom case in which you were not just a party but specifically instructed to stop that kind of behavior (first raised, that I know of, in an even earlier AN dispute in 2010 with PMAnderson, which culminated in ARBATC in 2012). That's seven damned years to figure out how to approach article titles more reasonably. That AGF-failure diff is just one instance from one discussion; as I indicated, I'd prepared a lot more evidence but restrained myself from posting it. I would think that you're familiar with the kind of comprehensive diff dump I'm prepared to do to see "style and titles warring" disruption curtailed, and that you would not want to goad me into posting one.

  Anyway, I speak from both direct and observational experience in suggesting that a mutual short-term move ban would be instructive for both you and IIO, and would dispel a lot of unnecessary drama for other RM editors. If you end up back here again over the same matters, I think you should expect the long-term move/titles topic ban you almost got last time. I strongly suggest you refrain from lodging any more move-related ANI complaints, because they just draw attention to your own issues in this area, and raise concerns about "move-stalking" of "enemies" (IIO appears to have a good case that you've been doing this to him). If you think someone is being a real problem with regard to moves, step away and let someone else deal with it (e.g. ask admin Cuchullain to look into it, since he's well-versed in the nature of the issue and willing to speak up about it). Your hands are just too unclean on this to bring a case yourself, and you are far too devoted to titles debate as your no. 1 activity on WP for you to have a balanced viewpoint on the matter, anyway.

Venue-related stuff:

When an ANI thread is already open about a user's behavior (regardless who opened it about whom), and remedies have already been proposed (including some unilateral and bilateral BOOMERANG suggestions), then that noticeboard thread is the proper venue for addressing the behaviors (especially in light of previous AN/ARBCOM incidents about the same behaviors), not user talk. It's also not at all encouraging of use of your user talk page when you hat the relevant discussions there specifically to stop further commentary about these matters. Despite your hatting, I did try reopening related policy-interpretation discussion there anyway [71], before I posted here, and I did so specifically to correct someone else's policy misinterpretation, so I'm hardly picking on you (and you did not respond anyway).

Policy interpretation stuff∂:

I'm going by the CONCISE-related manifesto essays you wrote, which had the character of proposals to change AT policy, and which you cited incessantly as if they were guidelines, until they were both WP:MFDed and userspaced [72], [73]. If your views on the matter had perceptibly changed as a result of these clear community indications that they were anti-consensus, that would be great. But your above statement is simply a reassertion of one of your MFDed essays, without any significant alteration, and it is still inconsistent with consensus policy interpretation and the wording of the policy itself. There is nothing whatsoever in WP:AT that even suggests that any of the five criteria are specially used only as some kind of "tie-breaker". If WP:CONCISE wasn't important in its own right, it would not be one of the five WP:CRITERIA, and the community does not agree with you that concision considerations only enter into naming decisions when all other things are equal between two names. Nor does the community agree with you that a shorter name must always be used versus a longer one if both satisfy the criteria (which is what my struck comment was referring to). Most of us understand it's more complicated than that, since a slightly longer name may much better satisfy multiple criteria than a too-clipped one. If [I can't read minds!] you've actually moved away from your other MFDed essay's contrarian position about the latter point, then I might have misinterpreted your current position after all, and stand to be corrected. (This possibility is why I struck my original comment.) Feel free to clarify – in user talk, since "how B2C interprets AT, and who or how many agree/disagree" isn't one of the matters that are before us at ANI. Similarly, people have also disagreed with your interpretation of what the word "concise" operationally means in the WP article titles context, but that's another matter for another time and venue, and has no relevance to the behavioral matters that are actually the ANI concern. I won't engage with you or anyone else in further discussion of such off-topic interpretational detailia in this venue.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: This sounds reasonable and a good step for the future should restrictions not be implemented here, but I do want to reiterate that IIO's editing problems are serious and go beyond the dispute with B2C. If I thought a final warning would do the trick, I'd be right there with you, but IIO has shown an unwillingness to listen to any of the many people who have questioned or challenged him over the course of years, and it appears that the problem is escalating (he admits that he's attempting to avoid scrutiny by doing this).[74][75] I expect we'll be right back here at ANI pretty shortly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Well, I did suggest a 3-month ban could be appropriate. But I also see IIO making it clear that he's intensely frustrated by B2C in particular, and feels that he's being hounded and edit-stalked by him, and that IIO's actual editing history is being manipulatively misrepresented, that B2C is just cherry-picking largely unrelated mistakes and things that are just "I don't like it" non-mistakes, out of thousands of smoother moves. There's evidence both these assessments are correct. I have a strong feeling that if this two-party problem has cold water dumped on it, that IIO's "my fingers are in my ears" behavior will stop or at least lessen, especially since this ANI is raising this behavior as a primary concern about IIO. He'd have to be a bit nutty to get a signpost this big put in his face and not adjust his behavior, wouldn't he? As I noted above somewhere, it is not necessary that the problems exhibited by B2C be identical to those exhibited by IIO in order for ANI to restrain the both of them, only that they both exhibit move-related problems that are long-term, have been raised before, and need to be addressed. If anything, I might modify my suggestion to call for a manual and speedy move ban on IIO's part, and broader move ban for B2C, who has been exhibiting multiple and serious problems in this area for about 7 years straight, despite repeated admonitions and sanctions. From what I can tell, the only reasons he escaped a topic ban from moves and RM last time was a long list of behavior-change promises that have not been fulfilled, and a couple of his friends claiming he's an "expert" we need on WP title policy, which is clearly not true since his two attempts to codify his views on the topic were MfDed as against actual consensus. I know far more editors who sharply disagree with B2C than agree with him, on more than one AT-related matter. But the incivility issues can't be ignored, all interpretational and consensus matters aside.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: I hear you. It may be the case that IIO feels aggrieved by B2C, but as I've said, IIO has accused many unrelated editors who bring up problems with his edits of hounding and stalking.[76][77][78][79][80][81][82] The "I didn't hear that" problem isn't only stemming from the dispute with B2C.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. This thread is so long and diff-heavy, I haven't seen every item.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been following the whole thing from start, and just now, I can really agree SMcCandlish, I feel a final warning for IIO, and a large trout for B2C for the incivility. —JJBers 18:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

JJBers, if there is anything about my behavior that you believe deserves a trout please bring it to my attention on my talk page, to give me a chance to resolve it. I came here to AN/I regarding IIO's behavior because he ignored attempts from many including me to address his behavior on his talk page as documented above. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I personally find it very annoying when people post essentially the same comment, in the same words, in response to multiple different editors (or in response to several unrelated comments by the same editor[83]). I'm not sure if there's a policy or guideline that explicitly discourages this, but if there is none there ought to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: WP:BLUDGEON covers the first (though not the "in response to several unrelated comments by the same editor" variant). B2C was admonished by ArbCom already about this stuff: "Findings of fact: ... Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses" [84]. It was also a major issue in his previous WP:AN sanctions: "... hounding the opposition is not helpful. It discourages uninvolved editors to participate, it raises tensions, and it puts folks in a more defensive mode than collaborative. I find that there is strong consensus for some kind of sanction. By strong, I mean overwhelming to the opposes. ... Unfortunately, getting B2C to see the light has not solved this problem in the long term." [85]. The same basic pattern was also central to an RM topic ban at WP:AN that he narrowly escaped [86] by promising to change this pattern, the failed "seeing the light" referred to in the second quote.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hijiri88, sorry about the near-duplicate replies. You're right. Not normal for me. I wanted to reply to each of you. Should have made a combined response. Not sure why I didn't. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --В²C ☎ 04:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support, I would go further and ban In ictu oculi ("Iio") from initiating a move using RM, because his past behaviour over moving article that can be spelt with diacritics, IIio will simply create lots of RMs, that are not justified under the guidelines (or will justify his/her move by cherry pick sentences from guidelines that support Iio's move but ignore wider guidance). IMHO Iio has done immense harm to this project by his obsessions in moving articles to native spelling of articles, without even a pretence of considering whether the native spelling is commonly used in reliable English language sources (see for example Archive 7 and Archive 8). This thread shows that Iio transfer's similar tactics to other areas. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Gotta call "shenanigans" on this one. Far too few of the "cases" against IIO are being examined (though I thank those above for their efforts to analyze some of them). It's standard operating procedure for WP to use diacritics for bio subjects who use them and/or for whom English-language RS can be demonstrated using them (even if some other RS do not use them, which is often the case with American newspapers, sport governing bodies, etc., many of which have jingoistic house style rules against diacritics, and which are thus the opposite of reliable sources when it comes whether someone's name properly has a diacritic in it, even if they're reliable for the subject is married to or what her sports stats are). There is no "immense harm" to the project in using culturally correct name spellings for the individuals they belong to; it's what we do, by long-standing consensus, but on a case-by-case basis to determine whether its appropriate. The middle of an ANI about behavioral problems is not a place to relitigate the tedious and perennial case against diacritics on Wikipedia. A handful of editors have been at war against diacritics for years, based on the common-style fallacy and a severe misinterpretation of WP:USEENGLISH (both of which PBS's argument above is also based on) and will not listen no matter how many times they're told they're wrong. They even tried to start a "wikiproject" devoted to hunting down and eliminating diacritics in article titles and text, and it was deleted at MfD as an anti-consensus cabal.

    I remember the Ana Ivanovic case in particular, because IIO was doing general cleanup in this area (all the rest of it successful, if I recall, even in the face of proven sockpuppeteering against his efforts) and he wondered about Ivanovic in particular. We had a discussion about it in 2015, in considerable detail (and the thread above that one is also pertinent). IIO's attempt to add diacritics in that article (with a source, but apparently unaware that her own English-language website, which doesn't use the diacritics, is a better source for her as a BLP, per WP:ABOUTSELF policy) was way back in May 2012. That article has has five RMs and one MR, all about the diacritics issue, only two opened by IIO. His first was the third, in May 2013 (waiting a full year to re-raise the question after being reverted – very rudely and with accusations of bad faith – in the article text). That RM closed as "no consensus", which the MR upheld. He then waited another two years, and no consensus was the result again. So, clearly, IIO was not doing anything against consensus, nor rash, nor by manually moving pages, nor by ignoring other editors, nor anything else raised in this ANI as an IIO behavioral issue. He was trying to apply WP:CONSISTENCY policy, using standard move discussion procedures, and was patiently seeing if consensus would emerge (not even whether it would change). This is not in any way problematic behavior, though I would have opposed that particular proposed move for reasons I gave in the discussion I've linked to and which I've summarized here.

    As admin Joy (Shallot) observed in the 2nd RM, back when, the original move of this article to a name without diacritics was performed on the basis of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that conflicts with site-wide practice, WikiProject Tennis declaring that they're going to do with/to player names what sport governing bodies do, come hell or high water. This is actually against policy in multiple ways. A gaggle of topic-focused editors do not get to declare other sources void and use only the ones that agree with their personal style preferences. This is simultaneously a WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV problem, and their soapbox behavior on the matter is a WP:NOT one as well. It's pure coincidence that in this one case the potentially-diacritic-bearing name shouldn't actually have one because the subject herself intentionally and provable doesn't use it in English.

    As with several other "cases" listed in this is ANI, the behavioral evidence is actually strongly in IIO's favor. The only issue it raises is that he opened his final RM on the page after I explained to him why that article shouldn't move, as an unusual case. "Didn't agree with SMcCandlish's policy interpretation", however, is not an ANI-sanctionable offense, nor is it any kind of "immense harm". It's also noteworthy that this 2012–2015 stuff actually predates some 2016–2017 reinterpretation (during and in the wake of the MOS:JR RfC) of the importance of WP:ABOUTSELF with regard to name spelling and punctuation for BLPs. IIO has not raised this move suggestion again, so I assume he understands now why that move cannot happen just on the basis of his WP:CONSISTENCY argument; other factors outweigh that one criterion (which is the least and last among the WP:CRITERIA, because it is not sourced-based, but grounded in editorial maintenance concerns, and to a lesser extent the expectations of long-term readers who become very familiar with our naming practices).
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, this is just the typical controversy at RM spilling over. These two have complete opposite (and both extreme) views of article title policy and regularly have drawn-out arguments at RM. In my view, B2C is just as tendentious as IIO, and as such banning IIO and not B2C would be unfair. I was recently involved in an RM that B2C closed, despite it being a) controversial and b) having expressed views on the topic before. After being asked to revert by multiple editors, he, of course, did not. B2C has an (IMO) extreme view of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The analysis by SMcCandlish is an excellent overview. Laurdecl ^talk 11:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

And now he appears to have started a very large RM on Faberge egg articles immediately after a thorough RfC was closed, simply because he disagrees with the outcome. He also disdains the closer, a well-respected editor, again because he disagrees with the outcome. Laurdecl ^talk 11:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I started an RM after a group of articles were moved without the moves being advertised on RM or even their respective talk pages as policy requires. Is following policy and starting a proper RM a problem now? And I did agree to revert my close of that other RM discussion if anyone previously uninvolved (and without a history of disagreeing with me) disputed its outcome. Nobody did. Of course, even those involved can file a review at WP:MR. Is it also a problem to report a serial unilateral page mover who has been ignoring policy and consensus on this issue for the better part of a decade? I know I have tone problems. Probably exhibiting them now. I'm sorry. It's a character flaw. I have a hard time believing anyone could think ill of me, so I'm less careful with my words than I should be. I know I mean well. Don't you? So it's "fair" to ban me too? --В²C ☎ 16:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If the RfC already concluded to move them, that is consensus, and is sufficient. I know you know this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You opened the RM because you disagree with the result of the RfC, which takes precedent over an RM in any case. I don't want you to be banned from moving pages, and I don't want IIO to be either. When you say he ignores "policy and consensus", do you mean your interpretation of what you think the policy and consensus are? The consensus in the Faberge RfC was to move the articles, so why aren't you respecting it? Of course you mean well, but so does IIO. What I'm trying to say is that disagreements over titling policy should not result in formal sanctions being thrown around. Laurdecl ^talk 07:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)w

@Laurdecl you write "RfC, which takes precedent over an RM in any case". What guidance are you are using to come to that conclusion? It is contradicted by the AT policy section WP:TITLECHANGES "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made". The fall out from the great "Men's rights movement title debate" of 2012 was that page moves ought usually go through RM process and not the RfC process for two reasons. (1) The RM process is tailored made for controversial page moves; and (2) those with an expertise on the AT policy and its naming conventions tend to lurk around RM and not RfCs. There were some instances such as AfD that could result in a page move but by an large it was agreed that RM was usually the best forum to discuss controversial page moves. To see the debate that took place see The RfC, talk page complaints about the RfC and the ANI. There is yards and yards more on that drama in the archives at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and other places.-- PBS (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS. I did not know all that background but I certainly knew the clearly stated policy at WP:RM which you quoted, and that was the basis for my revert of the moves that resulted from the non-compliant RFC, and for the RM discussion I initiated after my reverts were reverted by an involved admin. Now that RM failed and the whole thing is a cluster with about 20 articles with unambiguous names (no other uses on WP) that are never-the-less disambiguated with parenthetic disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 17:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, as one of the overriding behavioral and structural policies of the entire enterprise, trumps AT, which is basically just the parts of MOS that have been raised to policy level to help curtail some bickering. The consensus policy makes it clear that consensus, about any matter, can form anywhere, by whatever process; the only important part is that it forms. See also the WP:POLICY policy, which by definition is also above AT: our policies are to be interpreted in the spirit in which they are intended, not as to their exact wording (see also WP:LAWYER, WP:GAMING, etc.). While it may be generally preferable for moves to be conducted by RM, ones that result from the outcome of RfCs and other consensus discussions are not magically invalid. This is also a matter of clear WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policy, and WP:IAR policy, and the WP:Common sense meta-policy. In short, our rules are flexible, are not Holy Writ, and exist to serve the project not vice versa. RfCs frequently do take precedence over RMs, when they address something in a general way that affects multiple articles. Same goes for MoS changes, and changes to various other guidelines or policies. If, for example, our guidelines changed to stop giving names in the form "X. Y. Zounds" but to use "X.Y. Zounds" we would not have thousands upon thousands of redundant RM discussion, we'd just move the articles. The only RM discussions needed would be for unusual cases, e.g. where the subject and sources about that subject are alleged to uniformly use the spaced version. (We know this is true, because we have exception to the current "space out the initials" rule, largely handled at RM, and on precisely that kind of source analysis, and we've had many proposals for more such exceptions, where the analysis has shown the claims to be faulty. The exact same process has been used with regard to "comma-Jr", and many other matters. The aftermath of the MOS:JR RfC is a fantastic example of how and why the result of an RfC can and should just result directly in page moves. Instead, we actually tried discussing it page-by-page, and it was a total time-sucking nightmare that almost got several editors hauled to dramaboards for tendentiousness, IDHT, forumshopping, and personal attacks, and almost had at least two editors resign from the project in frustration. Any time a process can be used to just get on with it, instead of re-fight what was just decided, go the former route. See also WP:DRAMA, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm a bit late to this discussion (not that it matters) and I see IIO's name a lot at WP:RM anyway. He does some great work and I've never had an issue with any of his page moves, regardless of them going through WP:RM or not. I can see that some people may have an issue with the odd move here and there, but I fell he's acting in good faith with all the page moves. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: My views are similar to Lugnuts'. IIO may be overreaching a bit lately, and may make the occasional mistake (as do we all), but is a very valuable contributor and does a lot of work cleaning up creeping chaos at the fringes. That should be encouraged. To some extent, I have recently been seeing a situation of "camps" on Wikipedia, with "disambiguators" (including IIO) who tend to think titles should be more clear and navigation should steer the reader away from potential confusion, versus "ambiguators" who seem to think that landing on a dab page is a horrific tragedy that should always be avoided if at all possible. This present dispute is a symptom of that ongoing struggle, and the strongest voices here against IIO are from those who frequently advocate maximum ambiguity. This isn't the right way to settle that dispute. I personally find myself agreeing with IIO about 98.7% of the time. It may be desirable to try to politely ask IIO to moderate this sort of activity in some way, but this proposed action isn't appropriate. (Sorry for being late to this party.) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't always see eye to eye with IIO wrt article titles, but from my interaction with him, I've found his judgment to be mostly sound. An editor like him who does a lot of useful work is bound to make occasional mistakes; a topic ban on page moves would be a gross overkill. -Zanhe (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear, {{U|Zanhe||, like most here I'm sure, I too value IIO's knowledge and useful work. This is not about disagreements with him, nor is about occasional mistakes. It's about him consistently ignoring policy against making potentially controversial page moves over the better part of a decade despite multiple reminders to stop doing so by multiple editors. --В²C ☎ 16:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Truite? Ou boomerang?

I'm sorry, but the more commentary by B2C I read here and on IIO's talk page, the more I think he/she seriously needs to be taught the importance of WP:CIVIL. I find it incredible that someone who routinely engages in this kind of sniping rhetoric could have been editing for twelve years without a single block. Did this just happen recently? Understanding/misunderstanding policy is one thing, but civility should be a given, and in fact is by far the most important policy on Wikipedia (for good or ill). Everyone gets frustrated/angry from time to time, but I don't see anything IIO did that could explain this. @Born2cycle: do you understand why this kind of comment is inappropriate? Do you regret it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: I still disagree with B2C, but to quote Jeremy Barton, "I'm starting to root for this guy". I can definitely sympathize with B2C on some of the details here. So I say WP:TROUT. I can see that consensus is actually moving toward a formal sanction for IIO, and if some of the others (including Cuchullain, who I trust even more than IIO) are right that something has changed about IIO's behaviour since I last interacted with him, sobeit. I can actually accept this because I had essentially the same thought back in 2015 when IIO posted this bizarre and hypocritical attacks against me. I'm not withdrawing my opposition to the formal ban, though, as I don't see any evidence that people have tried to convince him to voluntarily pull back. This is just to say that I don't think my TROUT proposal is likely to go anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: What about B2C's attempts to challenge the consensus of the "Fabergé egg" articles?

• Talk:Fabergé egg#All this unnecessary disambiguation is contrary to policy
• His contributions
• My talk page
• Reverts by admin Primefac

Your response to the above? George Ho (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll be creating a multi-page RM when I have time. --В²C ☎ 16:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88, regarding the comment you linked above, I'm sorry but I don't see what the issue is with it. This whole AN/I, and at least two others prior to this one (in which I was uninvolved), are all about IIO making undiscussed/unexplained moves much like that one. That is what he does, that's all I said, and it's why I think only prohibiting him from making unilateral moves will resolve it. The examples identified above are just a sampling, there are many, many more. I don't mean to disparage him, but it does no one any good to pretend otherwise. If I'm missing something, I apologize in advance. --В²C ☎ 16:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Note I was going to stay out of this, but having my competence repeatedly called into question by Born2cycle is starting to wear a bit thin. How much of this nonsense am I expected to put up with? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure which states: "Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear..."? --В²C ☎ 23:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes. I'm familiar with Non-admin closures of all types. Our conclusions differ - that doesn't mean there's any lack of competence on anyone's part. To infer or imply otherwise is not an act of good faith. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Don't question the ability of inexperienced editors to perform non-admin closures of controversial discussions. You'll get repeatedly threatened with a site-ban. Believe me. My experience with this is the same reason I said above that CIVIL is the most important policy, and outweighs all others combined. Ask ArbCom and they will agree -- the highest court in the land doesn't care a lick about content, sourcing, verifiability, original research, or good faith; if you are easily driven to write snide remarks some of the stuff in the diffs above, you need to just follow the Wickedly talented Adele Dazeem's advice and step away, or talk to other users you trust about reviewing closures in your stead, because you're not going to get what you want acting like that. I actually agree that Exemplo was out of line with that close (email me if you want a full explanation why, or look at the contrib history of AlbinoFerret and figure it out for yourself), but you need to know how to express yourself in a manner that those who don't agree will appreciate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and I really appreciate what you're trying to do here, and accomplishing. Exemplo347, I apologize for questioning your abilities and experience. I've seen it done before (about others in similar situations) and thought it was acceptable and appropriate. But now I'm not so sure, to say the least. --В²C ☎ 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If anyone around here knows about BADNACs, it's you, not Exemplo347. The first thread on your talk page has no less than seven editors asking you to revert your close on Iznik pottery, and at least two of them completely uninvolved. Laurdecl ^talk 11:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

All of them were either involved or have a history of disagreeing with me, as noted in that discussion. I would have reverted if a single person objected to my close who was uninvolved and had not expressed animosity for me or my views in the past. There was nobody. --В²C ☎ 17:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like you were moving the goalpost. Do Dicklyon or Omnedon have "a history of disagreeing" with you? They both asked you to revert. Laurdecl ^talk 07:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes they do! People with strong opinions like mine tend to pick up antagonizing friends along the way, and I'm proud to include Dicklyon and Omnedon among mine. You can search for either of their names in my talk page archives to confirm... Consider Archive 7 from 2013, for example[87]. --В²C ☎ 21:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Figures

@user:Gerda Arendt you wrote "A page move is easily reverted if not needed, while every time I participate in a RM I feel like wasting time." Are 24 easily reverted? That is how many move OiiIio made in on 26 April, 25 April "only" 5, on the 24 April 21 moves ... According to this search OiiIio had made about 20,400 edits that involved the word "moved page" since December 2009, to put that into perspective you have made 404 "moved page" edits since August 2009. This year you have moved 16 articles ie in a third of a year less than OiiIio made on the 26 April alone. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope your figures are more precise than your abbreviation of a user name. Let's stay with 24 moves one day: not all of them will be contentious, and the few left that may be can be handled (discussed or reverted) by the different people who care about these articles. I don't see the problem. I have bad experiences with requested moves, for example The Flying Durchman, an impossible title (the only stage work by Wagner in English, while all others are in the original language), but consolidated by a RM. Waste of time. I won't try again, rather leave it impossible ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the abbreviation thank you for pointing it out. I think my numbers are correct why don't you look for yourself? I am willing to correct them if not.-- PBS (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88 searching on "moved page" returns about 179 (less than one can score with three darts), if OiiIio was moving so so few articles this ANI would be inappropriate, but we are talking about an editor that has made 500 moves in March and April of this year. So whether or not you think there is a boomerang problem, there is a real problem that needs to be address in with OiiIio and excessive moves in this ANI. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be addressing my initial !vote's rationale that non-controversial moves are fine because they are not controversial. I stand by that statement because, even if he had moved 10,000 pages in two months, I would still need to see some evidence that some of those were bad moves or were counter-consensus. There are (indeed were a week ago, when I cast my !vote) a lot of people !voting based on the assumption that someone making a lot of unilateral page moves must be a bad thing. In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia has a lot of shitty articles, many of them probably having shitty titles that don't conform to MOS. Again, I'm reminded of JoshuSasori, who proudly advertised on his userpage having created a bunch of pages with titles in contravention of MOS guidelines (as in, he specifically stated that he didn't like MOS and had titled those pages deliberately). It isn't beyond belief that IIO noticed a similar, much larger, problem recently, and even if his moves were wrong (again, I trust Cuchullain's judgement most of the time) I think a warning to take a bit more care would be enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As above, the high number of moves are the result of a high number of article edits and high number of disambiguation edits and disambiguation page creations (or restorations where a search term previously leading to content such as "Sivi" is displaced by a minor entertainment article.

Also above, and again ancient history being raised now, but also as above a high total number of moves over the years are the result of creation of bios or implementation of RfCs about use of full Unicode fonts not ASCII 24 letter fonts. PBS, like GoodDay, is entitled to a view on "diacritics" contrary to WP:FRMOS etc as Talk:Édouard Deldevez, but the die is cast, the entire encyclopedia (except for one Serbian lady sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb) uses full unicode for BLP, I am not to blame for that, hundreds of editors participated in well attended RfCs at WP Hockey WP Tennis and elsewhere many years ago. It maybe in 2017 with Brexit there's momentum for a move of the entire article corpus back to resemble the Daily Mail, but it's not relevant to discussion here about whether I was somehow malicious or "gaming" by leaving Bombay Mail (a) for templates to settle and (b) for B2C to follow my edits. I was in good faith improving the encyclopedia by allowing readers looking for the 3 possible topics of Bombay Mail to find them. And similar. I have no further interest in continuing to create disambiguation pages, even when obscure entertainment topics are inserted over a search term with many more meanings. And thus no need to move terms like Submergence to make room for them. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Iio I think you are confused the 20k+ has nothing to do with requested moves, these are move you have have made, not those you have requested or participated in using the WP:RM process. By way of comparison taking the edit count of the editor one above and below you who are not admins returns 180 344 (I have missed out the admin next to you because admins may have unusual profiles compared to other users (although in this case the admin has only made 45 page moves). The point being that you moving of pages is not 10 time that of the people I have compared you with, but more than 100 times as large. SO even if you make no more misjudgements that average you are likely to have made 100 times as many misjudgements. -- PBS (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As an editor with many article creations, many edits, many dab pages, if the worst that someone can say is that some were reverted, and I did not contest but happily left, without creating further drama, that doesn't sound to me like it is related at all to your own issue: "immense harm to this project by his obsessions in moving articles to native spelling of articles" (i.e. by following RfCs and WP:FRMOS etc). If you want to resurrect the diacritics issue, then please go back to 2011-12 and all the RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez, go back to the RfCs, and make a case to reverse the use of "native spelling" as you call it throughout the article corpus. This is the consensus of 100s of editors, not just myself. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

More than "some" were reverted. But that's not even the issue. Almost certainly more should be. What's problematic about these unilateral moves of yours is you rarely provide even a short explanation in the edit summary, let alone real explanation on the talk page, much less wait for input. Not to mention that on many of these pages probably those few who are watching understand WP title-decision-making less than you do, so waiting isn't going to be fruitful anyway. Most of these moves are clearly in the potential controversial area that require WP:RM listing. You're just not collaborative on these moves. WP:BOLD does not apply to moves like it does to edits. That's what you don't seem to appreciate and respect. That's why you need to be forced to stop. --В²C ☎ 21:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This is another red herring. An editor devoted to title cleanup will of course have a much larger move rate than average. Someone totally focused on dogs will have a tremendously higher rate of dog-related edits than average; and so on. The stark obvious problem with this ANI (aside from it being a grudge thing), is that the whole "IIO made this X number of move-related errors over Y number of years, so should be move banned" so-called reasoning is statistical nonsense and fudging. You could easily demonize anyone who is an editorial specialist by this misleading method. "Jimbob the dog-obsessed editor should be T-banned from dogs, because over the last decade he's introduced typos to dogs articles 297 times! He must be doing it on purpose!", when what's really happening is Jimbob has produced a glorious river of content and actually has a lower typo-introduction rate than an average, but someone who seems to be more concerned about fighting another editor than working on the encyclopedia has spent hours, maybe even days, cherry picking every error Jimbob has made, in an attempt to paint him as destructive. I ain't drinking that Kool-Aid.

We should focus on IIO's "I'm not listening" behavior, and how to get that to stop, then the entire set of issues will be resolved. It's clear that the vast bulk of his move work is productive and uncontroversial, and that the actual problem is him being unresponsive (or insufficiently responsive) when a move, or a category of moves, or a type of move, is actually controverted or will predictably be controverted because the last several near-identical moves were. [Hijiri88 said somewhere above that a move cannot be controverial until after it is controverted, and this is not true. I know this for a fact, since I got a short-term move ban several years ago by insisting on the same interpretation, and learned the hard way that it is incorrect.]
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If it is true that defendant "rarely provide[s] even a short explanation in the edit summary" then that's not OK, especially under the circumstances. You don't have to provide edit summary for regular edits (it is nice though), but for page moves? It ought to be essentially required. One outcome could be (in addition to anything else (or nothing else) stemming from all this might be "everyone is strongly suggested to use edit summaries for page moves". Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't punish people for not doing what something thinks "ought to be" required.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish claims: "An editor devoted to title cleanup will of course have a much larger move rate than average. ". I'm an editor devoted to title cleanup and my move rate is pretty low. Anyway, nobody has made an issue of IIO's move rate. It's the number and percentage of those moves that are clearly potentially controversial (usually a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue), so obviously potentially controversial that he should definitely know they are supposed to go through an RM discussion before they are moved, that's the problem. --В²C ☎ 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine; an editor devoted to title cleanup who also avails him/herself of the direct page move functionality will have a larger move rate than average. Let's not split hairs in a silly manner. Someone obviously did make an issue of IIO's move rate, or we wouldn't be talking about it. No one has provided this alleged "percentage" of his moves that are potentially controversial. Please lay out your math now, so we may examine it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Side matter

Can we stop referring to editors as "plaintiffs" and "defendants", and cut out the talk of "enjoining" people? It sounds silly. EEng 16:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't want to feel like this is some court case. —JJBers 13:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine, the powdered wig was itchy anyway.

Also as what is probably a side matter: at the time all this was happening the operative page, Wikipedia:Requested moves, contained the advice "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first" which had been there since 3 August 2014. So I mean technically at least, it's kind of hard to fault someone for following that advice, although many normally-allowable procedures can be overused to create a pattern of disruption, which is what is alleged asserted here, so this may not really apply.

FWIW, this advice has been removed, leaving "Anyone may move a page without discussion if... no one could reasonably disagree with the move" as the now-operative guidance. But this is just recent and doesn't apply to these past actions (and is not even fully decided, discussion continuing on the WP:RM talk page). Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

As per that Talk page discussion this wording was inconsistent with what was said elsewhere on the page and IIO never defended his actions or disputed when he was repeatedly reminded by multiple editors about what the rest of WP:RM said against making potentially controversial moves. He knew. He didn't care. He did anyway. --В²C ☎ 21:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is true that (as far as I know) nobody has made reference to the "Anyone can be bold and move a page" advice; it may be obscure and not well know, and as you say also contradicted by other material on the page. That's why I put in the "side matter" section, it most probably has little bearing. Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus, as you initiated the conversation at WT:RM#This page offers directly contradictory information why are you ignoring my point that I made at 09:34, 9 May 2017 that when I drafted the wording I used "can" and "may", so that there was no contradiction on the page unless the person reading it did not know the difference between can and may. Do you? -- PBS (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@User:PBS, I'm not ignoring it, I just don't agree. Your point was that there is subtle distinction between "can" and "may", the former describing a technical ability and the latter describing permission, a distinction that has been driven home by generations of teachers to students asking "can I go to the bathroom" -- but unsuccessfully, I think. Since unsuccessfully, I believe that most people reading "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move..." to be using "can" in the "giving permission" since, in context. If the second sentence was "You can but you mustn't" that'd be different. But the "you" in the second sentence refers to a second person, since it speaks about reverting. If it doesn't, then the advice devolves to "1) make a bold move 2) think about it a bit 3) maybe revert it you realize someone might object". But that would be silly advice. Since it would be silly, the "you" in the second sentence must be a second person. Since that's so, the only the first sentence addresses the first actor. And in that context, the "can" implies permission, to most readers, I think. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Completely correct. EEng 14:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus when you write "student" do you mean "pupil"? When you write "bathroom" do you mean "toilet"? Are you an American? You write "Your point was that there is subtle distinction between 'can' and 'may'". You are putting words in my mouth I did not state there was a subtle distinction, what I stated was "There is a reason I used the word 'can' and not 'may' (and why the point about moving back uses 'may')". You write "I believe ..." but that is only a belief and you seem to be arguing that because you did not notice the difference between "can" and "may", most other editors would make the same mistake. If you do understand the difference between "can" and "may" and read the three sentences making that distinction, then please explain not how you initially misread the first sentence, but why you are sill trying to argue that "can" and "may" mean the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, brother. EEng 07:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

OK @User:PBS. I hear you, OK. Yes as a technical matter of grammar you have a point, my point was regarding how the words are usually used and interpreted by the general public. Anyway, as I said, it's a side matter and probably not important to this case, although IIO could point to it as justification if he wants to. On the merits, looking at it again, I did conclude that

"Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move..."

could be read as meaning

"Any [fool] can be bold and [wrongly] move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move..."

except for one thing: it doesn't say "can be bold" it says "can be bold" with a link to WP:BOLD, which opens with "Be bold can be explained in three words: 'Go for it'" and continues in that vein of general enthusiasm for intrepid audacity. This would make no sense in the context of bold moves being deprecated. Herostratus (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Blocked"... for no reason

User:Fenix down keeps adding wrong material to Nauru national soccer team. I have removed it twice and now he has blocked me from editing it.

He writes that the team exists (it hasn't played since 1994). Even the main article about soccer in Nauru says it "has no official national team".

He writes that the Nauru Amateur Soccer Association exists (there is no evidence of this, and a [citation needed] already there).

He writes that Nauru played the official Solomon Islands team in 1994 (the article directly contradicts and says that they only played random workers who were on the island).

He uploaded a logo that is fake and non-offical, it is just fan art. It was either made by him or made by someone else on a fantasy graphic design website.

He didn't respond to any of this, just said I was being "disruptive" and blocked me. I have done research for this, if he has done research to prove that he is right why doesn't he add it to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.178.108 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Side Note Although the edits were vandalism, I do feel protecting the page was a little too WP:INVOLVED. —JJBers 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: How are they pure vandalism? Did you actually read what I wrote above?

This is the board for admins, why are you even deleting my thread before any admins read it?

I'll state again: there is no evidence that the Nauru national soccer team exists, there is no evidence that that is it's logo. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.178.108 (talk • contribs)

We could re-title this thread, "closed prematurely for no reason". The OP was not blocked - "blocked me from editing it" refers to the page protection. I'd advise the IP to discuss with the admin in question, or on the article's talk page, before bringing it here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I've tried discussing it with the admin, he just readded the unsourced content and ignored me. That's why I brought it here. 106.68.178.108 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The admin's talk page doesn't seem to have this discussion. Well, the logo is sourced to Italian Wikipedia, which in turn is sourced to German Wikipedia, which deleted it. It doesn't appear very satisfactory. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

So the logo can be deleted I hope. I thought admins weren't supposed to block users when involved in a content dispute, but anything goes I guess. Maybe I will move this discussion to a football-specific where people don't shut down my threads and threaten to block me just for posting, like @JJBers: who isn't even an admin and has apparently just been warned on his talk page for the same thing he did here. (Redacted). 106.68.178.108 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

And you should be blocked now. —JJBers 16:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Your first steps should involve the admin's talk page and the article's talk page. Please try not to be abusive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, the file was deleted off the German WP for not having proper licensing information. The page Narau doesn't actually say they have no national soccer team (though to be fair, it doesn't mention soccer at all). Not sure who's right about content here, but page protection in response to edit warring is pretty run-of-the-mill stuff. IP, I'd suggest you get over it and try to find a source showing that the team no longer exists. Then make an edit request on the article talk page (or you can ask at my talk page, if you like) and if the source meets our standards, it will get done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I meant the Soccer in Nauru page not the actual article about the country. I thought normal you need sources to prove the existence of a subject (there are none currently), not to prove the lack of existence (proving a negative). 106.68.178.108 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• User talk:106.68.178.108, from the looks of this page, the IP doesn't want to be civil, and is continuing to make personal attacks. —JJBers 17:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Your own behaviour is far from exemplary, non-hostile, and welcoming. IP OP, please now go and listen to the other advice you've been given. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Re-opening this. I have to say that I'm actually in agreement with the IP. This source which took me 2 minutes of googling to find suggests that the one "match" played by Nauru was, indeed, a friendly against some random Solomon Island migrant workers, and not the national team. If this is the case, the "Nauru international football team" has never actually played an official game ... so the article really shouldn't exist. I would suggest that the protector of the article undoes that protection, and possibly thinks about reverting the article back to the redirect given that we don't appear to actually have anything to write about. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That may be the case (hence my offer to the IP to make the edit for them if they find a source), but bad behavior over good content is still bad behavior. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

That may be the case, but bad behavior should not prevent us from improving content just to spite the bad behaver. ansh666 07:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really prepared to unprotect the article as I feel the a lot of the recent edits have been at best significant contested changes without discussion and at worst vandalism. Whilst in principle I don't have a problem with a redirect, i do have a problem with editors unilaterally deciding something is non notable and creating a redirect without attempting to discuss or to transfer any of the reliably sourced content to the other article. That said I wouldn't contest any other admin unprotecting. Fenix down (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've never suggested nor implied that it should (ahem... hence my offer to the IP to make the edit for them if they find a source). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I removed the protection. Fenix down, you probably should not have been the one to pull the trigger on protection since you had edited sources on the article previously and the edit to make it a redirect isn't vandalism, but a content dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Major issues at X-Men (film series) talk page

Initial report

It has been a long-term situation, but there are a select few of very specific editors on the aforementioned talk page that repeatedly engage in edit warring, owning behavior, and belittle the rest of the editors who have anything to say that is in different opinion than their own. It can be seen very easily by the comments there, as well as the edit history on the X-Men (film series) page. My question here was what can be done to prevent these editors from continuing this behavior? I don't know whether certain editors can be blocked or not, but it sure would save a lot of trouble that those specific pages have undergone. The behavior there has lead several editors to also express their reasoning for not editing as much as they would like to - which in my mind detracts from Wikipedia's community nature. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As an update to the above, I have asked the offending editor in question if they intend to continue edit-warring after the protection expires or not, or if they have actually taken into accounts the accusations against them. If they do plan to continue, I second Disney's question: What can be done to prevent this? If the editor continues their WP:OWN behaviour (not just noted by involved editors, but also by an uninvolved editor from WP:3O), then what can we do to stop this? -- Alex^TW 09:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) All parties are showing pretty gross incivility, and on the substance AlexTheWhovian in particular is showing a misunderstanding of the nature of CONSENSUS, by assuming that the status quo is automatically supported by consensus merely by virtue of its being the status quo. That is not how consensus works. All articles are presumed to have room for improvement, and if anyone makes an edit, while it can be reverted and discussed per BRD, there should not be an assumption that a "new consensus" is required to overrule an earlier "consensus" except in cases where the change actually did affect something that was specifically put in place by consensus. If one editor (in this case User:Hotwiki, who I notice was not notified despite there being an ANI thread opened about them) makes an edit and one other editor (or even two editors) reverts it, that is only one editor (or two editors) supporting one version of the article and one supporting a different version, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Threads like this, for example, should not appear on article talk pages. Regardless of the edit-warring that has taken place and who may be right or wrong on the article content, as far as I can tell just by looking at the talk page and the cloak-and-dagger style evident in this thread, DMH and ATW are actually the worse offenders. And, no, admins do not have the authority to impose topic-bans or page bans on editors, unless discretionary sanctions are in play and the editors in question have been made aware of this, and this does not appear to be the case. You need community consensus to force such a sanction on an editor or editors (or somehow convince ArbCom to take the case); engaging in this kind of behaviour (e.g., carefully avoiding naming any specific editor under the false assumption that this justifies not notifying the editor who is clearly being referred to) is not going to convince the community to impose the sanctions that seem to be requested. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit being discussed is the removal of the line in question by the offending editor; there is no current consensus to remove it, nor was there ever, and hence, the version with the line (i.e. in this particular case, this just so happens to be the version of the status quo), this is the supported version. Hence, your gross accusation of WP:TAGTEAM is unfounded. If you decide to read the full conversation sometime soon, and I recommend that you do, you would find a minimum of four editors (further invalidating your above claim of tag-teaming) supporting the accusations against the offending editor, meaning that their edits and behaviour at the discussion page are clearly in dispute here. -- Alex^TW 10:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't accuse anyone of TAGTEAM -- I was making a general comment about the nature of CONSENSUS and how you seem to be taking the status quo as automatically being supported by consensus simply by being the status quo. The simple fact is that even if one editor or a small group of editors support the status quo version of an article, that doesn't constitute a consensus. Your claim that there are four editors (presumably against one) who support your version actually supports my assertion that you and DMH are engaged in cloak-and-dagger behaviour referring to unnamed "editors" or "the offending editor" in order to evade your requirement to notify the user you are reporting. Note that I am not saying your 4-1 claim is accurate. I don't care if it is or not. Even if it is, four users is still a pretty weak consensus, and you can ask these two what happens when a small clique of users try to say that their opinion makes the status quo "consensus" just because there are more than one them. ANI is not the place for hashing out content disputes and establishing consensus on what an article should say. ANI is about user behaviour, and your own (repeated!) refusal to name the user you are reporting in a transparent attempt to avoid having to notify themis about the worst I have seen in this case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In reply to the second comment added... If you have an accusation against me, then I suggest you file a report against me. By all mean. And while that it is possible that that thread might not have had to exist, I highly doubt that we are the "worse" offenders; the offending editor has displayed copious amounts incivility, edit-warring, owning the page, not taking on the suggestions of other editor, not being prepared to actually discuss disputed content or leave the status quo while you do, and talking down to editors, and this has all been pointed out to them from multiple editors, not just us, including a completely uninvolved editor. Again, I recommend that you read the entire discussion, not just the parts that you wish to take things from. -- Alex^TW 10:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, if you file a report, or encourage another user to file a report in your stead (as you did in your first comment in the thread I linked above), you are susceptible to a WP:BOOMERANG based on your own behaviour in this ANI thread. And yes, it is inappropriate to use an article talk page to discuss "Certain editors". The OP, who has been here for eight months, can maybe be forgiven for not knowing this, but your own repeated use of the phrase "the offending editor" to avoid having to notify User:Hotwiki that they are beinf discussed on ANI cannot be blamed on your inexperience. And no, I have no intention of reading the entire discussion, and I highly doubt anyone else will. If you don't post specific diffs, all the rest of us have to go on is what you did provide and what is self-evident in the ANI discussion itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to both of your concurrent discussions in the same post. (Why was that a thing?)

I was making a general comment about the nature of CONSENSUS and how you seem to be taking the status quo as automatically being supported by consensus simply by being the status quo. I'm taking it that you didn't read my reply to that, so I'll go back to it. The edit being discussed is the removal of the line in question by the offending editor. That being the edit discussed, and given the basis of your replies on essays, then the editor is deliberately deciding not to follow BRD; their removal of the line was reverted, and they should have let the discussion unfold before reinstating any such edit.

Your claim that there are four editors (presumably against one) who support your version actually supports my assertion that you and DMH are engaged in cloak-and-dagger behaviour referring to unnamed "editors" or "the offending editor" in order to evade your requirement to notify the user you are reporting. ; ANI is about user behaviour, and your own (repeated!) refusal to name the user you are reporting in a transparent attempt to avoid having to notify themis about the worst I have seen in this case. Did I file this report? No? Therefore, I am not required to make any such action. I did indeed make a comment stating that a report had already been filed, meaning that they were indeed aware of it. I am also not required to name other editors - if you wish to partake in this discussion against the offending editor, it is therefore up to you to be educated on what you are actually discussing. The editor being named is clear to you, given that you posted on their talk page, so I believe that you are simply coming up with the most random of accusations against me that you can. This is not a surprise, given the trouble that I have seen you cause on the talk pages of other articles.

ANI is not the place for hashing out content disputes and establishing consensus on what an article should say. Neither is WP:RPP, but the editor in question decided that that particular forum was the best place for such a discussion, and yet, no comment on them either. Again: do your research before you decide to take part in a discussion such as this, so you can actually know what you're on about.

No, if you file a report, or encourage another user to file a report in your stead (as you did in your first comment in the thread I linked above), you are susceptible to a WP:BOOMERANG based on your own behaviour in this ANI thread. Funnily enough, I didn't start that thread either, I simply gave a suggestion to the editor that did. Do try to keep up. I am completely aware of BOOMERANG, so if you do indeed feel the need to file an actual report against me based on my actions that have required this particular thread to be created, then I recommend you do so, instead of just throwing out stray observations.

but your own repeated use of the phrase "the offending editor" to avoid having to notify User:Hotwiki that they are beinf discussed on ANI cannot be blamed on your inexperience. Did not create the report, not obligated to notify the editor. Already had notified the editor that such a thread existed in the first place. Is it just me, or is anyone else getting a serious case of déjà vu?

And no, I have no intention of reading the entire discussion, and I highly doubt anyone else will. If you don't post specific diffs, all the rest of us have to go on is what you did provide and what is self-evident in the ANI discussion itself. Then that is entirely your fault if you list inaccurate observations; if you have not actually read the discussion, and you have no idea what is actually going on, then this is evidence enough that you are only replying to this discussion out of your own personal feelings for and against the editors involved, and your arguments really have no basis here. If you wanted diffs, then those should have been provided in the initial report. If you have an issue with myself or any other editors involved, then you should be providing diffs yourself, by your own demands and advice. Finally, if you don't want to educate yourself, then your word against the word of editors that have actually been involved in this really can't be taken seriously, can it? -- Alex^TW 11:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I did read the above wall of text. It contains a lot of completely off-topic commentary, uniformly misses the point of my comments from which it quotes, and reflects the level of civility I have come to expect from the crowd who edit articles on comic book movies, have an OWN mentality that they project onto users they disagree with, and think that the status quo of articles that passed one GA review is by that fact alone "consensus". I'm not going to break down all the specific ways the above demonstrates this, as I have better thigs to do with my life. I don't know or care whether "the editor"'s edit removed information that I myself would support including in the article. All I know is nothing is going to come of this thread at this point, so it might as well be closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I am obviously so glad that you decided to read my response; I didn't type it out for fun and giggles, nor do I think that you're here for that same reason either, but because I believe that the behaviour of the offending editor who was reported needs to be dealt with. As I stated, it is clear that you are not here for the discussion that results in this report, or against the editor that this report concerns, but for your personal opinions of the editors who have found it necessary to report and the areas that they decide to edit, given that you have decided that you do not want to educate yourself on why this report is actually necessary. Therefore, I find your claim that it contains a lot of completely off-topic commentary, uniformly misses the point of my comments from which it quotes, and reflects the level of civility I have come to expect from the crowd who edit articles on comic book movies completely invalid, and not related to the discussion at hand at any level whatsoever.

All I know is nothing is going to come of this thread at this point, so it might as well be closed. Your personal views have against been noted, but I do most definitely disagree with you; I am sure that other editors might find this discussion most enlightening, and that the administrators patrolling this article take action from it.

Now, none of my previous reply actually addresses the actual topic that was initially addressed in this report, so I thought I'd do that myself. Per the accusations against the offending editor that I have previously listed off:

• Incivility - Though multiple personal attacks against the editors on the discussion page, the editor has displayed extreme incivility to anyone that opposes any of their edits, or to editors whose editors they personally oppose. Each of the following accusations also showcases their incivility in the time that their edits have been disputed.
• Edit-warring - One only needs to see the edit history of the article. The editor removed the line in question, and their somewhat bold edit was reverted, given that it was unnecessary to do so, given the usage of that particular line in pre-existing cast tables. From there, a discussion should have started, a (new, if necessary) consensus gained, the discussion closed, and then any edits resulting from that discussion should have been implemented. Instead, they decided to edit-war over the issue, displaying constant WP:OWN behaviour in the discussion as it was going, and then after the page protection had expired, they returned to the same issue through edit-warring, in a different format (rather than remove the content, they decided to add a "citation needed" tag to it), and continued edit-warring after that.
• Owning the page - This particular one has been mentioned by multiple editors on the talk page, nor just the two editors who oppose the offending editor's actions that have been involved in this discussion, and even an uninvolved editor who came to the discussion through a post of my own at WP:3O. They show constant OWN behaviour by deciding which edits are necessary or not, throughout the whole discussion that resulted from their initial editors. This even continued into an unrelated protected edit request, where they stated that the edit was not at all necessary, when they were unaware that it actually was, given the false information that resided in the article. It seems that your claim of editors who have an OWN mentality that they project onto users they disagree with seems to fall directly into the ballpit of what the offending editor is actually being accused of, so I am glad that you can see that point of view.
• Not taking on the suggestions of other editor - The editor has proposed a number of changes to the layouts of the tables that are displayed in the article, and demand that these suggestions should most definitely be implemented. Other editors may provide suggestions as to how to modify these tables, removing any policy or guideline violations such as Crystal or Original Research; many of these suggestions are vehemently rejected.
• Not being prepared to actually discuss disputed content or leave the status quo while you do - This is clear in itself, through the section I made in regards to the offending editor's edit-warring. They have ceased discussing in any attempt to continue a discussion, stating that they don't need to reply, while at the same time continuing their edit-warring against the content in dispute.
• Talking down to editors - Comments such as "now be a good editor and not do it again" are self-explanatory. That is wildly acceptable, and the discussion should have been posted on the other editor's talk page, instead of the article's talk page. Perhaps you decided to miss that one in your own tirade against me.

Perhaps the above will enlighten the editors who have decided to take a part in this report, who have decided not to actually read through the discussions that have produced the issues at hand. -- Alex^TW 12:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Indenting as such to indicate my return to the initial report. So, while the below discussion may have been closed between the agreement of myself and Hijiri88 (and regardless of the beginning issues of this report by the reporting editor(s), issues which did exist, which I have personally noted and will take into account), the primary report and list of issues against the editor initially reported (that is, Hotwiki) still stand and require addressing. -- Alex^TW 11:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Alex, could you stop hijacking this discussion as though you were the one who initially opened it, on one editor whom you know who it is, and then denying that you were the one responsible for opening it? The OP specifically referred to users in the plural, and did not name any of said editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it common-knowledge that users who are a part of the argument in discussion, can and should voice their opinions/issues/experiences? The users we are talking about here, (am I supposed to call them out by name? Oh, I'm sorry I was trying to be CIVIL by not calling them out. I will notify them again so they know -- btw I told them in the talkpage by which they edit-war on) have dragged other editors' names through the mud repeatedly, talk down to users with 'less experience' than them -- even though there's no telling whether or not certain editors have simply made new profiles over the years, exhibit OWNing behaviors -- just freaking look at the edit history and/or the talkpage, and have (I repeat again) an elitist attitude in general when it comes to anything regarding Wikipedia. Alex^TW was and is one of those users that has had to deal with the ridiculous behavior on said talkpages; am I wrong in believing that any editor that has a second acknowledgement to the issue at hand SHOULD come here and give examples...(?). Otherwise by what other avenue is the problem going to be resolved? Just take a look at Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 4 for starters. There is a long history of conflictive responses. There is a demeaning rhetoric and tone with the previously stated users towards anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their opinions. Next - look at the edit history. That's why I came on here to bring up the discussion. Edits are reversed left and right with demeaning comments and without citing resources. Wikipedia is supposed to be community collaboration of information. Not simply reverts from editors that think they know it all, when they clearly negate regulations and rules against doing so. The fact that ATW is defending himself to you, and to any admin or editor is justifiable. Without reading the discussions, you clearly won't see the issue by any means. P.S. the editors in question are User:Hotwiki and User:Tenebrae clearly.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88 here. There was nothing whatsoever "clear" from your original comment about which editors you were reporting, and in fact you and ATW seem to actually be in disagreement regarding who you were originally intending to report, since you above clarify that it was Tenebrae and Hotwiki, but ATW has, in virtually every comment he has made in this thread, referred to Hotwiki alone as "the editor". You were clearly told when you opened this discussion that you were obliged to notify users being discussed, but you didn't do so. It's therefore very difficult to take it as a good-faith coincidence that you were one of the relatively few users who "forgot" to notify the two users in question and you also happened to be one of the (absolutely) few users who didn't name any particular party to begin with. It looks very much like you deliberately avoided naming them in order to get around your obligation to notify them. Whether you are acting in good faith or not, though, you should at least talk with ATW to get your story straight on exactly whom you are reporting on here: for whatever reason, ATW seems to be very reluctant to name Tenebrae as one of the users being reported, and given that you opened this discussion on ATW's recommendation it's extremely difficult to work through when not even you and ATW are on the same page as to who is causing disruption. 182.251.141.102 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider common knowledge, but your last sentence clearly (to use your emphasis) shows you once again, as with your RfC canvassing, either disregarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not understanding them or deliberately circumventing them. You have been, in my opinion, less of a constructive editor in your short time here than you have been simply disruptive and constantly argumentative. And please: You're not helping anyone with your Trump-supporter-like repetition of "elitist" and "elitism" over and over again. Because guess what? Most of the admins are experienced, veteran editors who know and respect the rules. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm calling common-knowledge what can be read right in your response to my issue. I am not disregarding policies, as you just did by stating your political views (which is irrelevant and noone really cares about - as President Donald J. Trump has nothing to do with this), and as you stated below in Arbitrary break: No. Your opinion is not fact. - I am anything but disruptive and argumentative. All of my edits have been constructive and deliberate in trying to be civil. As evidenced in the edits by User:Hotwiki who remains silent on this topic for some reason, said user exibits WP:TAGTEAM with YOU when stating "Tenebrae and me" over and over in the talkpage, and you completely ignore that as well. Elitist is an adjective. You continuously bringing up political individuals in your retorts is completely juvenile.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand this report at all. I certainly didn't try to own any article here. Why just can't editors assume good faith when I was just trying to make the article the best version it could be, with the help of reliable sources,and not applying crystal ball wording like "to be announced". I am innocent. I guess some editors aren't just happy that their edits were reverted before and I was against about an article move.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Please see the above list that I complied, concerning your behaviour. Editors do typically assume good faith, but when you decided to edit-war over the topic, instead of letting the discussion run its course, and you had no less than four separate editors (if not more) state your behaviour came under WP:OWN, that is when you should have realized that something was wrong with how you were executing your edits, even if you believed that you were "just trying to make the article the best version it could be". You may have thought that, but the majority did not. -- Alex^TW 06:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Hijiri88 here (do I still need to keep saying that with every comment?). Similar to your previous refusal to name the editor(s) you were reporting, you should name the "no less than four separate editors" stating Hotwiki's behaviour came under OWN. I "Ctrl+F"ed the X-Men talk page for "OWN" (again -- I wouldn't have had to do your work for you if you had named names and/or provided diffs) and unsurprisingly about 90% of instances of it being used to describe a user's behaviour vis-a-vis the article (as opposed to, say, "Deadpool got his own film") came from you, with most of the rest from DMH. I see Brocicle (talk · contribs) saying An uninvolved editor commented that your behaviour is very WP:OWNing the article; if that "uninvolved editor" was either you ot DMH, Brocicle's comment is nonsense and can be dismissed outright, but more likely he was referring to ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs)'s Although HotWiki may be [emphasis added] WP:OWNing the article, consensus can be established for the change. The actual situation appears on slightly closer examination to be not at all as you have been describing it, and Brocicle's summary of PG's comment as "your behaviour is very WP:OWNing the article" is also less than optimal. (Note that I'm not saying Brocicle should face sanctions, or anything like that, simply for having a somewhat strange reading of someone's comment on a talk page; I pinged him merely as a courtesy. He can comment here if he wants, or just ignore this.) 182.251.141.102 (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your ping failed. Anyways. I was replying directly to the editor instead of making a neutral post about them, and they are clearly aware of who participated and what was said in the discussion, meaning that I am under no obligation to do so, as the report was not towards at you. I do not need to fill out your every whim and fantasy. The comment of an "uninvolved editor" is most definitely in regards to the editor (that you pinged, so I don't have to, in case you wanted to accuse me of that to) that came to the discussion as a result of my post at 3O. If Hotwiki's behaviour wasn't OWN in the slightest, at all, then that comment would not have been required, meaning that whatever level it was, OWN was present. I await your reply to the rest of the discussion. (Congratulations, by the way, for finally making your way to the initial discussion page!) -- Alex^TW 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I know. Sorry about that. I was about to reping you but by the time I noticed you'd already replied. I was replying directly to the editor instead of making a neutral post about them No, you made the same claim several times in this discussion. Further up this thread, you said If you decide to read the full conversation sometime soon, and I recommend that you do, you would find a minimum of four editors, i.e., you specifically told me to do your work for you, and when I didn't I didn't get the results you claimed I would you tried to claim that you never told me to go looking. And yes, you are under an obligation to provide evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, to back up your claims. Otherwise, you create more work for good-faith volunteers like myself. And when we do your work for you, and find out that in fact you had been bending the truth on top of failing to provide the diffs, we are more inclined to believe you deliberately hid the diffs because they didn't support you. If Hotwiki's behaviour wasn't OWN in the slightest, at all, then that comment would not have been required, meaning that whatever level it was, OWN was present. You have to understand that, if someone behaves in a manner that resembles OWN (to use PG's words "may be OWN"), but all of their edits have been in accordance with our content policies, and the editor(s) they have not been allowing to edit the article are in violation of said policies, the "OWNing" user hasn't actually done anything wrong. I await your reply to the rest of the discussion. No, I will only respond to claims you make without diffs or other evidence at my own leisure (read: probably not at all). The same is true for the admins you are no doubt hoping will come along and block Hotwiki just because you want them to. Congratulations, by the way, for finally making your way to the initial discussion page! Your continued haughty sarcasm is noted. My very first comment in this discussion related to my reading of the talk page in question. I will admit I have not read all of it (put simply, both you and DMH strike me as generally unpleasant editors whose talk page commentary makes me somewhat depressed when I read it), but what I have seen is abysmal, and seems to contradict you almost every step of the way. (By the way -- I think the "initial report" section header is convenient for those of us editing on mobile devices, but would I be wrong in assuming you were the one who added it? I've noticed you trying to "frame" this discussion in a particular way, and you in particular seem to have missed the point that discussion is meant to proceed downwards, after the "arbitrary break", rather than upwards and sideways.) 182.251.141.102 (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait -- I remember where I have interacted with you in the past. It was at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.#What's a "pod"?. It's pretty rich seeing someone who has on at least one occasion taken the side of the sectarian cabal of editors who rule over the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles with an iron fist to accuse another user of OWN behaviour. Also, you need to stop saying this discussion is about Hotwiki alone; the OP has now explicitly stated that he was thinking of two editors (Hotwiki and Tenebrae) when he wrote his initial comment. 182.251.141.102 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just responding to the ping from the Hijiri88 to clear things up. When I said that I stated it that it was possible and quite clear that, unless confirmed by the editor who made the comments, was open to interpretation, specifically the word "may". I took it as Hotwiki may be WP:OWNing but consensus was available to decide a change, whereas I'm sure Hotwiki took it as he may be owning but the editor was not 100% sure and went on to say the bit about consensus. I just want to add that I personally do feel like Hotwiki has displayed WP:OWN behaviour in some instances but I don't believe he should be sanctioned. Clearly the main issue lies between Alex and Hotwiki, that must be resolved through their own discussions. Brocicle (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Brocicle: That's cool. You're entitled to your opinion, and I actually think your reading of PG's comment is likely the better one, but it's still just one editor's opinion, and per above I think if someone other than Alex and his amazing friends is engaged in OWN behaviour on an article but have a good grasp of our content policies ... well, that's better than the serious OWN issues I've noticed on a bunch of other articles in this general topic area over the last two years or so (my earliest memory was this). That said, if you are not seeking sanctions for anyone I apologize for bringing you into an ANI discussion -- can I take you as supporting my proposal that this thread be closed with some heavy trouts and nothing more? 182.251.141.102 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88, you need to use the SIGN button at the END of any of your comments. That's the proper protocol of Wikipedia. Also, you don't need to send pings out to other editors now that I have clarified who I am claiming is violating WP:OWN behaviors throughout this page's history. Look through the last five months even and you'll see that the two mentioned have been all up in arms when it comes to any edits made to this page. Along with that they belittle and talk down to all other editors, and specifically 'non-annon IPs' claiming that those who choose to edit without a username are less valuable. Futhermore the pair seems to WP:TAGTEAM with their opinions, specifically when User:Hotwiki states "Tenebrae and me" over and over throughout their discussion arguments. No one has a beef with you, but you requesting this thread be closed is irrelevant as you are not one of the users in questions here. If you're done with the thread, then just move along.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: Please link to one post I made in this thread that I did not sign. I have forgotten to sign posts in the past (usually about one or two a year), but I don't see any here. Additionally, if you make accusations of misbehaviour against other users (specifically Tenebrae and Hotwiki), you need to provide evidence thereof. You placed "non-annon IPs" in quotation marks, but when I searched Talk:X-Men (film series) for the phrase it came up blank, similarly, you say Hotwiki wrote "Tenebrae and me" over and over again, but searching the page brings up three instances of you using it, and two of Alex quoting you; can you provide a diff of Hotwiki saying it? Or any diffs supporting any of your claims? Anyway, if you really want this thread to result in some kind of action, I guess I could propose that you be TBANned, but I really don't think that's what you want... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad-faith sockpuppetry accusations by AlexTheWhovian

AlexTheWhovian does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong, or even that it was a sockpuppetry accusation. But there's no point continuing to discuss this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So apart from the above-indicated referring to the subject of the thread as "the offending user" apparently to get around the obligation to notify them, on said user's talk page AlexTheWhovian has been repeatedly accusing me of sockpuppetry because my iPad keeps logging me out, and on one occasion when it was obvious who I was I decided to take the (much) easier route and just post logged out. This appears to be part of a pattern of disruptive, gaming behaviour by this editor (see also the repeated refusal to notify the subject of this thread or tell DisneyMetalhead that they should notify them), and perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG should be considered. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Instead of facing the topic at hand they would rather distract the conversation by creating this false and irrelevant accusation, clearly based on their personal feelings against me in past discussions. The above editor replied to another discussion on the accused editor's talk page while logged out, giving zero indication that they were the above editor (while somehow expecting me to know that they were them; unfortunately, I am no mind-reader, so I indeed had no idea that they were one and the same), when they could have added "I am Hijiri88", but they decided not to. Why was that? And why does the above editor not decide to log back in? It's really not that hard to go to the Log-In page; however, they would prefer to take an action that they knew that I would comment on - was this a pre-meditated plan to be able to create some form of report against me? By the way, I've never accused you of sock-puppetry, as an IP account is not an account within itself, so I believe that the editor is trying to "blow up" the situation, if you will, to make myself look like some evil grandmaster, mostly to try to distract from the above discussion. I would be more than happy to be taken into account for these terrible edits that I seem to be accused of, but I'd recommend that the above editor also takes into account WP:BOOMERANG for themselves, given that their accusations against me are clearly based only on their own feelings and previous experiences of editors such as myself, and those that also edit in the same field as I, given that they hadn't participated in any current discussion with myself before this report was created. -- AlexTW 07:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC) The above editor replied to another discussion on the accused editor's talk page while logged out, giving zero indication that they were the above editor When an IP posts a response to your response to someone, and that someone stated in a comment directed at you a few hours earlier that they are having trouble editing logged in, and you and that user are the only editors involved in the conversation in question, you are allowed assume that the IP is that user, unless they directly claim not to be. when they could have added "I am Hijiri88", but they decided not to I have specified that logged-out edits were mine in other instances, but in that case I felt it was obvious. I think virtually every other Wikipedian will agree with me that it was obvious. Per AGF, I don't make my edits under the assumption that other editors are vindictive, gaming jerks who are going to go out of their way to accuse me of sockpuppetry the first chance they get. Sometimes I do, just to be extremely careful. But Safari's being a bitch has made editing Wikipedia extremely tiring for the last few days. And why does the above editor not decide to log back in? It's really not that hard to go to the Log-In page; Yes, it is. It involves waiting for the page to fully load, scrolling down to the bottom of the page, clicking "Desktop" (sometimes also refreshing because the page didn't load properly in mobile view and so the desktop view link doesn't show up), waiting for the desktop view to load, clicking "Log in", waiting for that page to load, entering my details (which, again, is something I used to have to only once every months or so, and so feels a lot more tedious than one might think, having to do it for every single edit), clicking on the link to go back to the page, waiting for the page to load a third time, clicking "Edit"... in this one instance I chose to just skip that whole process and just click "Edit". I am entitled to be tired -- consider the fact that I've gone through this entire process for every single edit I have made over the last 48 hours, with the exceptions of that one logged-out edit and one edit I made on Chrome before leaving the house today. however, they would prefer to take an action that they knew that I would comment on - was this a pre-meditated plan to be able to create some form of report against me? Paranoid much? I was already considering proposing a boomerang based on your atrocious behaviour on the article talk page, in this thread, and on Hotwiki's talk page before you started making repeated bad-faith sockpuppetry accusations. The latter (specifically, the third instance of the latter) just pushed me over the edge. By the way, I've never accused you of sock-puppetry, as an IP account is not an account within itself, so I believe that the editor is trying to "blow up" the situation Logging out with the intention of evading scrutiny is sockpuppetry, your ignorance of the policy notwithstanding. Even after I readily and explicitly told you it was me, you continued to (twice!) accuse me of deliberately logging out in order to deceive you. their accusations against me are clearly based only on their own feelings and previous experiences of editors such as myself Yes, editors in the "Comics" and "TV/film adaptations of comics" do seem to have an almost uniformly poor understanding of proper sourcing and, especially when this poor sourcing is pointed out to them, get extremely defensive and don't seem to put a lot of stock in WP:CIVIL to begin with, but the fact that this has happened before doesn't detract from the fact that you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC) someone stated in a comment directed at you a few hours earlier that they are having trouble editing logged in Did you? I actually missed that. And that is why you cannot assume that I will automatically know your every move. I felt it was obvious. You did. I did not. You cannot assume that I will also automatically detect what may be the obvious to you, but not to someone else. However, I feel that this is the most trivial of cases that we are feeling the need to argue here. You did not specify it was you, I did not happen to make the connection. Nobody is perfect. I don't make my edits under the assumption that other editors are vindictive, gaming jerks who are going to go out of their way to accuse me of sockpuppetry the first chance they get. I would be carefult here, it seems that you are bordering the line of uncivil, per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, which I believe is what you have been accusing me of recently. I am sure you are aware, though. I am entitled to be tired I am sure that you are. However, if you had wanted to be certain that no issues would arise out of a situation that would have been out of the normal, then there was no rush to reply. You could have waited until you had a more reliable form of internet or communication to be able to make your reply. I am not exactly going anywhere; if you ever plan to reply after a prolonged time, then simply let me know, and I will be sure to give you my own reply when you return. Paranoid much? Perhaps. One can never be too safe or certain on the internet, can they? I am simply listing out my observations of this discussion as I see them, and taking away from it what I can, and what I will. I was already considering proposing a boomerang based on your atrocious behaviour on the article talk page Consider me confused. I was under the impression that you had not read the article talk page, and that you did not plan to? The specific quote that supported this went as follows, I believe: And no, I have no intention of reading the entire discussion, and I highly doubt anyone else will. Your story does not seem to be lining up here; I would recommend that the plot lines of this story be straightened out. The latter (specifically, the third instance of the latter) just pushed me over the edge. Well, I am glad that you decided to go with your gut here. But, be careful: your uncivility in this very thread may cause a return of WP:BOOMERANG back at yourself. Per the "Editing while logged out" section, there is no policy against editing while logged out per se. Meaning that editing while logged out is not exactly sock-puppetry, which is something that I never accused you off. As I had stated earlier in this reply, I did not make the connection that you and the IP editor were one and the same. That is not exactly my fault, we cannot all be expected to know this. Even after I readily and explicitly told you it was me, you continued to (twice!) accuse me of deliberately logging out in order to deceive you. Well, when you replied while logged out, you still did not mention who you were, did you? If you had understood the fact that I, an editor far from perfect, might nt have made the connection, it would have been a simple line from you, stating that you were editing from a logged-out situation. Why you did not do this is unexplainable by me. Yes, editors in the "Comics" and "TV/film adaptations of comics" do seem to have an almost uniformly poor understanding of proper sourcing and, especially when this poor sourcing is pointed out to them, get extremely defensive and do not seem to put a lot of stock in WP:CIVIL to begin with, but the fact that this has happened before doesn't detract from the fact that you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner now. And again, you have filed this particular report, and replied to the previous report (which you now seem to have ceased after having no further contributions to add to it), based upon your personal experiences with editors who contribute towards the same areas as myself, meaning that this is a personal endeavour, not a professional one. Concerning the latter part of your statement there, it seems that you are not putting a lot of stock in the same guideline either, so I am not exactly sure where your issues are stemming from here. Now, while all of this has gone by, both the initial report at the article's talk page, and now your own personal sub-report to add to it, it does not seem as if any administrators have found it necessary to respond to either of these reports or conversations, while reports that have been filed after this one have gained attention, and even closure for some of them. Is this going to be a never-ending list of accusations between multiple editors, going round and round in circles, or do we actually need a senior editor to step in and resolve the issues that we apparently have with each other for us? Else, we may just be sitting here for days, if not weeks, simply having a go at each other with no end in sight. -- AlexTW 14:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC) This is Hijiri88. You accused me (repeatedly, even after being corrected) of deliberately logging out to mislead you. That is a violation of our sockpuppetry policy, which states Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by [...] using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy including to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. It also says Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy. Don't try to wikilawyer your way out of this by equating what I actually did (which isn't a violation of our sockpuppet policy) with what you accused me of doing: Doing this on purpose and editing while logged out, an attempt to deceive me. [...] Deliberate attempt to confuse by posting as an IP, without any indication of who you were (emphasis added). 106.133.137.181 (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC) This is Hijiri88. Now, how hard was that? It wasn't at all. Given that you decided not do add those three words the first time around, and given that your assumption that I could connect the dots was clearly incorrect, how am I meant to know why you decided to edit while logged out without a notification? There could be a multitude of reasons. Again, I'm not a mind reader on this here site, so I can't possibly take a guess as to why you didn't make a small notification of who you were, or your reasons behind it. Interesting how you're only taking in account some of my post, and not all of it; are you becoming aware of the faults in your accusations in both this discussion, and the previous one that you still have not replied to? Apparently it's still not for administrator intervention. -- AlexTW 02:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Again "you decided not to add those three words" is an AGF-violation. I thought it was really obvious that it was me. I am confident most of the community would agree with me. Even if it wasn't, I didn't "decide not to". I just didn't bother. Again, tired. I had jumped through all the hoops listed above about two-dozen times, and I was really sick of it. I'll stop by the Apple Store tomorrow and see if they can tell me what's wrong. The reason I am ignoring most of what you write is that, in those comments of yours I carefully read and responded to, you repeated yourself quite a bit, even repeating mistaken claims that I had already corrected ("deliberately logged out", "deliberately logging out in order to mislead isn't a form of sockpuppetry", "it's totally cool not to notify someone while talking about them on ANI as long as I was not the one who opened the thread"). I also have been finding that reading the things you write is very stressful and disturbing. I would really rather keep it to a minimum. Why I suggested even before you accused me of sockpuppetry that this thread should be closed, so not only I but others don't have to read that. The simple fact is that you came to ANI to report a user, whom you went out of your way to avoid notifying (repeatedly refusing to use their username), and you have not provided a single diff or any other evidence in support of your claims. I am thusfar the only outside party to comment, and since I commented in a manner you did not like you have spent the last two days attacking me almost nonstop. I highly doubt anyone else will comment here, so this really should just be allowed to end. 182.251.150.98 (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC) I thought it was really obvious that it was me. You did, but you were wrong, but you don't appear to be realizing the error of your ways. Perhaps it may be an AGF violation, but I'm here to edit and contribute to better articles, not to make friends; that's not my fault. Good luck at the Apple store. I also have been finding that reading the things you write is very stressful and disturbing. I do find the claims of me violating AGF and CIVIL from you amusing when you post things like this, and revert to name-calling, per your previous post. The simple fact is that you came to ANI to report a user And I will continue to maintain the fact that I did not report them, I only added to the report that existed. Regardless of my suggestions, I am not responsible for other editors on this site and what they do. I am thusfar the only outside party to comment, and since I commented in a manner you did not like you have spent the last two days attacking me almost nonstop. Perhaps that came out of the fact that you were commenting not in regards or concern to the editor or the discussion that resulted it, or even about the topic at hand, but simply based upon your personal feelings of myself and editors related to me through the areas we choose to contribute to. I highly doubt anyone else will comment here, so this really should just be allowed to end. I have a feeling that this is the first thing we've agreed on! This discussion is simply a back and forth between two editors now, with neither the reportee or the reported contributing to the discussion, and if any administrators haven't contributed by now, I doubt that they ever will, given that this whole thread has become very WP:TLDR. If you have any further accusations against me, I will face them. However, I do agree that this should end. -- AlexTW 09:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) (Got home to a computer. But this will likely be my last edit tonight.) I'm here to edit and contribute to better articles, not to make friends; that's not my fault. You may not think it's a fault, and I did not either until sometime in late 2015. But you can ask ArbCom about this. The most important policy on Wikipedia is WP:C, followed by WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If you are uncivil, rude, arrogant, snobby, unfriendly, overbearing, belligerent, haughty, snide, or any of a cadre of other adjectives, and are unable to keep those things under control while editing Wikipedia, you will be unable to contribute very long as long as anyone disagrees with any portion of your edits. And someone is always going to disagree. You could be 100% right and them 100% wrong, but if you behave in an uncivil manner and the dispute comes to ANI or (god forbid) ArbCom, it won't matter who's right or wrong. You don't need to "[be] here [...] to make friends" (I'm not either); but you can't go around treating other editors like dirt. And I will continue to maintain the fact that I did not report them, I only added to the report that existed. It was your idea to bring the dispute to ANI.[88] The OP thanked you for your suggestion.[89] The OP didn't mention any specific editors, and didn't notify anyone (itself a violation, albeit minor). You came along and replaced the a select few of very specific editors with "the offending editor", which when I came across this thread was the only specific detail that allowed any editor to be identified. If you hadn't commented, and specifically made it about Hotwiki (talk · contribs), someone likely would have come along and told the OP off for not naming any editors, providing any diffs, or notifying anyone of the ANI discussion. If the OP had named anyone, he would have been told off for not notifying that user, and likely the same commenter would have gone ahead and notified them for him. You did name them (as "the offending editor", with a diff that made it pretty clear to whom you were referring), but did not notify them. Put simply, you made a nonsense thread that likely would have been ignored into a discussion of a particular user, and you didn't notify them. You even went out of your way to insult me for notifying them and saying that you should have notified them. Perhaps that came out of the fact that you were commenting not in regards or concern to the editor or the discussion that resulted it, or even about the topic at hand, but simply based upon your personal feelings of myself and editors related to me through the areas we choose to contribute to. Nope. I commented based on what I saw (mostly in you and DMH's early comments in this thread, and your apparently trying to get around the obligation to notify the user[s] being reported). Then you started making a string of snide, belligerent, unfair attacks on me personally, and I responded to those. I don't remember interacting with you specifically before. I know for a fact that you edit articles related to superhero films (X-Men, for example), and I also know from experience that there are no editors working in that area who aren't either (a) belligerent, tag-teaming edit-warriors with poor sourcing standards and a weak understanding of proper encyclopedic writing, (b) people who never touch articles directly and have a very high tolerance (fondness?) for endless reams of talk-page back-and-forth that goes nowhere, regardless of whether they have a good sense of sourcing and writing style, (c) people like me who dip in occasionally, quickly remember why they shouldn't have done that, and get out immediately, and (d) users who don't fit into any of the previous three categories and somehow have managed to edit articles in this area productively and happily without ever getting into trouble (and without ever having come into contact with me, as I could not name a user in this last group if you put a gun to my head). But this doesn't matter -- it's really clear from what I've seen that you and DMH are behaving disruptively. For all I know, the same could be said of Hotwiki and Tenebrae. You need to provide evidence to convince me of that, though. I have a feeling that this is the first thing we've agreed on! Meh. For all you know you and I agree 99% of the time on article content. We might even agree on the content dispute that gave rise to this out-of-place ANI thread. But I don't care -- ANI is not about article content disputes, and I have better things to do with my life than get in fights over X-Men films. (It would be really nice if I were able to edit those articles without getting in fights, since I generally enjoy superhero movies in real life, but the toxic environment of those pages makes that damn-near impossible.) neither the reportee or the reported Umm ... grammatically speaking, those would be the same person. I assume you mean either "neither the reporter [n]or the reported" or "neither the reportee [n]or the reporter". But more importantly, neither you nor User:DisneyMetalhead have yet elaborated, after more than two days, on exactly who is being reported here. The OP specifically stated that there was more than one user (Tenebrae (talk · contribs)?) but you seem to believe it is just about Hotwiki. Again, if either one of you had provided any specific details up-front as to what the dispute was or what admin action you wanted, or if you had provided even a single diff or other piece of evidence, maybe this wouldn't have happened. However, I do agree that this should end. Then don't reply to this. If you hadn't told DMH to come to ANI, this thread would have never been opened, and if you hadn't commented here at all it would have likely gone very differently (see my second paragraph, not counting the parenthetical disclaimer). I'm going to keep posting on random noticeboard discussions until work calms down (actually that's what I would have said last week; now I just need to be able to post logged in from a device with a working X-key). You can go back to doing whatever it is you do. And we can all just forget this whole thing ever happened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm not sure if I'm one of the anonymous "offending editors" whom User:DisneyMetalhead avoided naming in an apparent attempt to do an end-run around notification procedures. I can state, however, that the issue at the X-Men page is about inserting "yet to be announced" language, which seems a textbook WP:CRYSTAL violation. I can also note, having been involved in at least one RfC with DisneyMetalhead, who was caught canvassing and does not have a completely firm grasp of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and protocols, that he often rails against experienced editors who do know policy, repeatedly name-calling them as "elitist." I think perhaps a corollary to "Don't bite the newbie" may be needed: "Newbie, don't act as if people who want to uphold policy are the enemy. Try and learn instead of constantly arguing and name-calling." -- Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? There's no name-calling. It's an adjective to describe your actions. I have said your elitist attitude, and mindset. No name calling there just stating the facts. Love that the admin totally dismissed this complete conspiracy.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Your opinion is not fact. I'm surprised anyone outside Donald Trump would believe one's opinion is a fact. I am not an "elitist." That is your consistent refrain, and while it isn't a vulgarity or an obscenity, it is still name-calling and wholly unnecessary. Also, there is no "conspiracy." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet you violate WP:Politics and WP:SPADE in the process of calling WP:POTKETTLE black. You just backed up my argument. Well done.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, yeah, those are essays, not policies or guidelines. Completely non-binding, and anybody can find essays that say just about anything they want, so I haven't "violated" a single thing. Whereas WP:CIVIL is a policy that we're all expected to follow and which is among the many such guidelines you have violated routinely. So, yes, I do think WP:BOOMERANG is warranted here, and that's something I almost never say. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88 here. "Elitist" is a meaningless epithet, and repeatedly calling someone an elitist is name-calling. Knowing what you are talking about is a good thing, and telling other users that you know what you are talking about (when you do) is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Whether it was appropriate to mention the current POTUS, one need only go back to 2008 when his predecessor was seeking election to find a bunch of RSes specifically referring to what DisneyMetalhead is doing as "childish name-calling". On top of this, I have said your elitist attitude, and mindset. is a sentence fragment. While I have made a bunch of these myself, it is difficult to take in good faith given DisneyMetalhead's actions earlier in this thread (refusing to name any particular editors in order to circumvent his obligation to notify them) makes me very suspicious that he meant to write something else instead of "said", or even that "your" was meant to be read as "you're" and the last three words as a misprint, thus making the above a personal attack about an editor rather than about said editor's "attitude" (itself somewhat out-of-line with WP:CIVIL, mind). Yes, this is pretty out there, but DisneyMetalhead's misleading, cloak-and-dagger behaviour in this thread -- he has already demonstrated that he is not acting in good faith -- makes it really difficult not to read his comments this way.

I still think this is a content dispute and should be closed so Hotwiki can open an RFC (it should not be left to DisneyMetalhead), but if anyone continues to disagree I think a BOOMERANG should be headed their way. Hotwiki and Tenebrae are not getting blocked today; I have lost all faith that ATW -- or any of the other editors in that firepit of a topic-area who isn't stupid enough to literally self-destruct on the talk page of a member of the Arbitration Committee -- will get blocked (although I think someone whose last block was rescinded because they said I will make myself more familiar with edit-warring policies, and immediately cease any future discussions or editing that may contribute towards me violating further warring and, to give just one example, made no less than seven reverts on the article Knock Knock (Doctor Who) on calendar May 7[90] should probably be issued with at the very least a harsh warning -- good-faith IPs inserting unsourced material and what one believes to be OR is not a standard exception to the three-revert rule); if no one is going to block DisneyMetalhead, then nothing is going to come of this thread, unless someone creates a concrete proposal, so the next person who posts here without making such a proposal should probably just request that the thread be closed.

182.251.141.102 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The initial thread has not yet been addressed concerning the initial editor reported. And stalking an editor's contributions? I have a feeling that that's against a specific policy, though I forget which one... Practice what you preach, preacher. Hotwiki and Tenebrae are not getting blocked today; I have lost all faith that ATW will get blocked; if no one is going to block DisneyMetalhead: And here we have a biased editor trying to play the role of admin, and dictate what the administrators should or should not be done. or any of the other editors in that firepit of a topic-area who isn't stupid enough to literally self-destruct on the talk page of a member of the Arbitration Committee I was actually warned off-site that you were a frequency visitor to ArbCom. Interesting. I'll reply fully to all of this when I get home. -- Alex^TW 00:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And stalking an editor's contributions? I have a feeling that that's against a specific policy, though I forget which one... If you come to ANI and ask for an editor to be blocked, you can expect others to examine your contribs and see if in fact you are the one who should be blocked. Anyone who even glances at your contribs can see that you make a lot of reverts, so noticing this is not a violation of WP:HOUND. It is extremely common for someone who reports on other users for edit-warring to themselves be equally responsible for the edit-warring, and examining your block log (which, again, given your consistently aggressive tone in this conversation, I think should probably be thicker than it is, so even checking your block log was not HOUNDing) revealed that you were unblocked based on your statement that you would not edit-war again. You reverted several editors on the "Knock Knock" article at least seven times in a 24-hour period. 113 of your last 300 article edits (roughly one week) have "revert" in their edit summaries, so it's not difficult to imagine that this has happened more than once. Your first comment in this thread included a link to a comment you made on the X-Men talk page in which you not-so-subtly stated that you intended to edit-war with Hotwiki once the page-protection had expired. You chose to make this about edit-warring, but you are the one edit-warring. Hotwiki appears to make reverts at something like one tenth the rate you do, he has not been EW-blocked since 2015; neither of you have historically used talk pages much, but he is at 7.3%, which is still higher than your 4.6%. You can call it wikistalking if you like to go through the public records like this, but you could make it stop immediately by letting this discussion be closed and archived. Read: Stop saying The initial thread has not yet been addressed concerning the initial editor reported.

here we have a biased editor trying to play the role of admin How am I "biased"? I don't recall ever interacting with you, Hotwiki or Tenebrae before, and I know I've never interacted with DisneyMetalhead before. And ANI is open to the community; that's why we have the (Non-administrator comment) template (which I used in my first comment to clarify that I am not an admin and should not be confused for one -- I'm actually one of the more careful users of this template, and if you spent as much time on ANI as I did you would find many people posting as though they possessed the mop, and the only way to know that they didn't would be to check the list of admins). Heck, it's why we have Template:Nac. dictate what the administrators should or should not be done Right now, I'm trying to "dictate" that whoever closes this thread does so in the manner that least harms you. You could probably be blocked for the way you are continuing to behave here, but I think it would allow everyone to cool down if this thread was just closed with no action except for both you and DisneyMetalhead being trouted for opening an ANI thread on several unspecified editors who weren't notified. I was actually warned off-site that you were a frequency visitor to ArbCom. Interesting. I'll reply fully to all of this when I get home. Would you mind disclosing who was contacting you off-wiki about me? If you are currently acting as a proxy for someone to violate their site-ban or interaction-ban which was imposed to prevent them from harassing me (I could name ar least three editors off the top of my head who might be possible culprits), then you should know that that is a pretty serious violation of WP:MEAT. You should know that, with the exception of one ArbCom case back in 2015, I have only ever been a casual commenter on one or two AE entries and one ARCA case, mostly related to the Israel-Palestine dispute in which I am not even actively involved.

182.251.141.102 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88 you need to sign each of your comments. I haven't called anyone an elitist. I've said 'YOUR elitist behavior' (yes, "your" not you are...do you understand English languate sentences?). To say "you are elitist behvior" makes zero sense in any sentence structure so that part of your argument is defunct. You sir, have zero experience with the discussions at hand here. Also your three comments - all not signed - have zero references from which you are stalking my supposed contributions, and are run-on sentences. They make zero sense. Also you are talking-down to editors by calling them "stupid". You're attempting to drag my name through the mud, and state that I should be 'blocked' - on what basis. You are in direct violation of WP:HOUNDING (Alex^TW that's what you are referring to), and WP:BULLYing through WP:POVRAILROAD, WP:PA, and overall straw manning when it comes to your accusations. You don't have any direct references to your claims, nor do you have any evidence that I have not acted in good faith. You don't know me, nor have I had any contact with you prior to this. You are completely contradictory and being a WP:HYPOCRIte while doing so. Unbelievable.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

you need to sign each of your comments. What comment did I not sign? I haven't called anyone an elitist. Don't make claims you can't back up... [91][92][93] To say "you are elitist behvior" makes zero sense in any sentence structure so that part of your argument is defunct. Read my comment in full and try to understand it. I never said that that sentence would make sense. I said that very little of what you are saying makes any sense to begin with, forcing the rest of us to reconstruct what you are trying to say, and it doesn't look good. You sir, have zero experience with the discussions at hand here. First off, drop the haughty tone. It doesn't suit you. Second, I've been editing (or trying to edit) Wikipedia's articles on film and TV adaptations of Marvel and DC comics since long before you registered your account. Also your three comments - all not signed Umm... What!? have zero references from which you are stalking my supposed contributions, and are run-on sentences. Umm... again, what? Could you write in English, please? Also you are talking-down to editors by calling them "stupid". Ctrl+F this thread for the word "stupid". I have not used it. You're attempting to drag my name through the mud, and state that I should be 'blocked' - on what basis. You came here asking for the admin corps to block (actually "ban", but admins aren't allowed place bans on editors without prior community consensus, so I assumed you meant "block") without providing any evidence or even naming the editors you wanted blocked. You also didn't notify anyone of this thread. You have committed about a dozen serious offenses already in this thread, and I would not have been unjustified even if I had asked for you to be blocked (which I haven't). and WP:BULLYing through WP:POVRAILROAD, WP:PA, and overall straw manning when it comes to your accusations. Pot, kettle, black. Seriously, this is the worst case of projection I've seen in months. You don't have any direct references to your claims, nor do you have any evidence that I have not acted in good faith. You didn't notify anyone of this thread. You carefully avoided mentioning anyone by name in order to get away with not notifying anyone. That is not acting in good faith. I don't need specific diffs of something you did in this thread. You don't know me, nor have I had any contact with you prior to this. Thank you for agreeing with what I said further up. I just noticed that actually we had interacted, albeit indirectly, on Talk:Universal Monsters (2017 film series) a day or so before you opened this thread. I opposed a poorly-formatted RM to no title in particular, which you had supported. You are completely contradictory and being a WP:HYPOCRIte while doing so. Unbelievable. So ... umm ... I think we're done here. Someone wanna close is bogus non-discussion now? 182.251.141.102 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (edited 03:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

This section of my reply starts off in regards to your reply to my comment. If you come to ANI and ask for an editor to be blocked, you can expect others to examine your contribs and see if in fact you are the one who should be blocked. Typically, yes, I would agree with you, but I would have made hundreds of contributions between the time of that article and now, so you would have had to scrutinize every editor between now and then. That is stalking only to serve your own purposes, and most definitely comes under HOUND. You reverted several editors on the "Knock Knock" article at least seven times in a 24-hour period. If you checked those edits, you would have seen that they were valid. You request everyone to assume good faith against you and the editor(s) being reported here, and yet you refuse to do the same thing for everyone else. 113 of your last 300 article edits (roughly one week) have "revert" in their edit summaries Continued stalking. If you must know, my edit behaviour is to wake up in the morning, check the unviewed edits in my watchlist, and revert any vandalism until my watchlist is cleared. I then begin with my regular editing, replying to talk pages, etc., while still keeping my eye on vandalism, disruptive editing, and the like. Not my fault how my contributions appear to you, even if your view is extremely flawed.

You chose to make this about edit-warring, but you are the one edit-warring. Incorrect. The article included that particular line for years, and it was HotWiki that decided to remove it - me restoring it while the discussion was meant to continue is not the edit-warring that is being looked at and reported here, it is restoring to the STATUSQUO and attempting to regain a CONSENSUS for it first, before any further actions were taken. (Amusingly enough, it seems that editors on the talk page now see to get why the line was being reimplemented, and a consensus is close to being formed to restore it.) neither of you have historically used talk pages much, but he is at 7.3%, which is still higher than your 4.6%. Where one contributs to really has zero relevance here, especially when one editor has about two times as many as the editor since they returned from their hiatus, and that editor does a great more deal of editing in template and module namespaces than the other. but you could make it stop immediately by letting this discussion be closed and archived. Read: Stop saying The initial thread has not yet been addressed concerning the initial editor reported. Your personal desires have been noted. Said personal desires will not be fulfilled. I will continue this discussion until I see fit, or until an administrator intervenes.

How am I "biased"? I don't recall ever interacting with you You have admitted yourself that you do not enjoy the presence of editors who edit in any articles related to comic-book films, series, adaptation, etc., so I believe that you are extremely biased against editors in these regions when issues come up; this is still supported by the fact that you vehemently disagreed with me in the initial report, even when you had not even read the initial report and discussion, so you had zero idea as to what it was about, regardless of whether you added the "Non-administrator comment" template or not (that really has no relevance here). Right now, I'm trying to "dictate" that whoever closes this thread does so in the manner that least harms you. Really? Let us backtrack a bit here. 1) Hotwiki and Tenebrae are not getting blocked today You are dictating that they will not get blocked, but you are not an administrator, so you have zero say in this. That is up to the administrators, if they ever decided to intervene in this discussion. 2) I have lost all faith that ATW will get blocked Declaring your desire to see me blocked, another violation of any good faith on your end, and declaring that the administrators are not doing their job properly if they have not blocked me yet. 3) if no one is going to block DisneyMetalhead, [...] so the next person who posts here without making such a proposal should probably just request that the thread be closed Trying to control direction of the discussion. You have listed in a clear and solid manner the editors who you believe will and will not be blocked, hence supporting my statement even further.

Would you mind disclosing who was contacting you off-wiki about me? Yes, I would indeed mind, cheers. then you should know that that is a pretty serious violation of WP:MEAT You do so like your accusations, don't you? I am not acting as a proxy for anyone. Blocked editors can still follow pages, and they can still follow discussions as they unfold. I simply received a warning in relation to their previous dealings with you, and I see that everything that they said to me is completely true.

I also see that you closed off the "Bad-faith sockpuppetry accusations by AlexTheWhovian" section that you created with the comment of AlexTheWhovian does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong, or even that it was a sockpuppetry accusation. When I returned to the initial discussion, I clearly stated that I was doing so regardless of the beginning issues of this report by the reporting editor(s), issues which did exist, which I have personally noted and will take into account, given that I consider the discussion post on Hotwiki's article as somewhat part of the beginning of this report. When I said "which I have personally noted and will take into account", I was clearly taking into account the accusations that I apparently made against you. It is amusing how you stated that I should have been able to know that you were the IP without you clearly stating it, and now you did not get what I was talking about after I did not clearly state it. Amusing indeed. Now, onto your replies to Disney's comment...

First off, drop the haughty tone. It doesn't suit you. Ditto, lad. I also believe that when Disney stated You sir, have zero experience with the discussions at hand here., it also meant that you did not particpate or even read the discussion that prompted this report, so you have zero place to decide on what happened there, or who was to blame (even if all of us had certain edits and statements that could be assumed to be in bad faith). You have committed about a dozen serious offenses already in this thread Name the dozen, or stop exaggerating simply to further your own cause. Exactly the same could be said about you, I could list off a number of serious offenses that you have committed during this discussion. Pot, kettle, black. Seriously, this is the worst case of projection I've seen in months. What are you talking about? They filed this report (even with its initial faults), and you came on board and started attacking the contributing editors at will, taking on comments purely of bad faith when you had no such basis to. If you want editors to act in good faith to you, then I recommend that you start doing exactly the same, by pointing out ones faults and misses of policy and guidelines politely, instead of straight-out abusing them. Educate, don't belittle.

So ... umm ... I think we're done here. Someone wanna close is bogus non-discussion now? Your comment of "is bogus non-discussion" could totally have your comment of Umm... again, what? Could you write in English, please? use directly back at you, but I am not going to do such a thing, just comment on the irony the comment itself. Anyways. Given that I highly doubt the administrators are even following the outrageous comments on this post, then I also highly doubt that anyone is going to close this current discussion that editors are still replying to, so your request is mute. However, if you wish to leave this discussion due to your stance against the editors contributing to it and how you disagree with them, then you are more than welcome to do so, that is entirely up to you. If any other editor wishes to reply to it, then they are more than welcome to continue to do so, ignoring your baseless request to have the discussion closed only because you do not like it. -- Alex^TW 06:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No way in hell I'm getting sucked into responding to another wall of text, but "Someone wanna close is bogus non-discussion now?" was clearly a misprint, and no one who graduated primary school would have trouble interpreting it. It's not remotely comparable to "have zero references from which you are stalking my supposed contributions". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I couldn't let this one go either: so you would have had to scrutinize every editor between now and then Not rewlly. I clicked on your contribs, limited the search to the "(Article)" namespace, and then "Ctrl+F"ed "revert". This was how I got the figure for your total number of reverts in the last week or so (it's flawed, but with such a large sample it was likely only off by no more than 10-15%). How I came across the "Knock Knock" article was similar: I just scrolled down through said results for a minute or so until I saw the same article title showing up a bunch of times in close succession; I then went to the article's history, went back to the day in question, and clicked through a bunch of your edits to see how many of them were reverts. A more scientific method would have been to examine all of your edits to the page during any of the possible 24-hour periods (not just calendar May 7 on GMT) and check them against other edits to see if they constitute partial or full reverts, but I only checked ones where the edit summary or the byte count clearly indicated that you were reverting the previous editor (hence my saying you reverted "at least" seven times). As for checking your block log -- again, you came here asking for someone to be blocked, and you gave as your reason specifically their intention to edit war with you. It would be irresponsible for someone not to check whether you had a history of being blocked for edit-warring. If you checked those edits, you would have seen that they were valid. What does "valid" mean here? Exceptions to 3RR? No. I checked all seven of the ones that were clearly reverts, and none of them are covered under said exceptions. "I think your edit is not sufficiently sourced" and "You POINTily tagged a bunch of unsourced material that I don't think needs to be sourced" may be valid reasons to revert an edit once or twice, but they are not exceptions to the three-revert rule. You request everyone to assume good faith against you and the editor(s) being reported here, and yet you refuse to do the same thing for everyone else. No, I assumed good faith until I went through the first three reverts and found that none of them were covered under the standard 3RR exceptions. Then when I saw the fourth revert wasn't either, my assumption that you had not violated 3RR was no longer necessary. This is not remotely comparable to "You deliberately logged out in order to deceive me. It was deliberate. DELIBERATE." If you must know, my edit behaviour is to wake up in the morning, check the unviewed edits in my watchlist, and revert any vandalism until my watchlist is cleared. If you consider the edits to the Knock Knock article that you reverted at least seven times to be "vandalism", then I wonder about your ability to determine what is and is not vandalism. Perhaps you should be placed under an editing restriction like 1RR, 0RR, or a ban from referring to any edit as "vandalism"? Clearly a year after you were blocked for edit-warring, and unblocked based on your promise to familiarize yourself with what constitutes edit-warring, you have not learned, but have instead started trying to justify your edit-warring by describing the edits you revert as "vandalism" when they clearly are not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC) (edited 05:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC) )

So, stalking in detail. Cheers. The discussion can continue with any other editors who want to, but personally, I'm just tired of the back-and-forth when it's clear that nothing is ever going to be done here by the administrators, against any editor involved, no matter what anyone wants or says, no matter what level of authority they believe they have. I might reply. I might not. -- Alex^TW 06:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

Alex, in your last comment above you criticized me for trying to direct admin action here. If that was really my intention, I could think of a few solutions I could propose, but as I said above I'm not even sure I don't want this thread to just get closed with a trout. So I'm going to ask again -- what specific admin and/or community action are you requesting here? Do you want Hotwiki blocked? Do you want Hotwiki and Tenebrae blocked? Do you want an admin to block either you or DisneyMetalhead? Do you want an editing restriction to be placed on any of the above-named parties? If so, what kind of restriction? 1RR? Page-ban? Topic-ban? Are you just here to argue indefinitely? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands allowing you to edit articles and freely engage ANI fighting, but some of us don't have that leisure, so it would be really nice if you made some kind of a concrete proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, could you provide some diffs in support of whatever solution you wish to propose? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Already replied. I've a life to live. Enjoy yours and your fury against comic-book-related editors. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 06:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So you don't have any proposed solutions or administrator action you are requesting. That's good to know. If all you want to do is have meandering conversations about how you don't like this or that editor but can't quite put your finger on which PAG they have violated and when/where, please keep it to user talk from now on. This noticeboard is for requesting that editors be blocked, or requesting community discussion thereof, but no one can discuss an issue of which you do not provide evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's that I don't want to deal with "editors", a loose term, like you. I've dealt with your lot; you attack people, then consider these discussions a victory. If anyone else wants to discuss this with me, especially admins, I'd be more than happy to. You are not an admin. You cannot tell me what to do. Ever. Know your place. Seems "they" were right. Cheerio. -- Alex^TW 11:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Hijiri8 above you stated 'anyone who graduated primary school wouldn't have difficulty interpreting'...blah blah blah.... And yet you continually spell words wrong, don't sign your name, have run-on sentence syntax (which makes it very hard to interpret what it is you are saying). You state that myself and Alex^TW are in the zone to be topic/page blocked -- for what reason? I know that I don't talk other editors' opinions or validity down. I also do not sit and revert everyone's edits endlessly as if it is all I do all day long, as the two identified users seem to do. You have no real argument in this discussion. You are simply creating conflict. Meanwhile, I ask where are the admins' responses to this topic?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm... again I must ask, where are these unsigned comments? Do you mean my logged out comments? I wish you would actually read my comments, like the ones where I explained I was having technical difficulties editing logged in. On top of that, I have made considerably fewer misspellings and grammatical errors in this discussion than you or Alex -- some of your comments in particular are near-incomprehensible -- so I don't think you should be throwing stones here. Almost all of my misspellings (and I admit they happen quite a bit) are simple misprints, and some of them are actually explained on my user page (the odd "missing t", the ms where there should be apostophes, and the bs where there should be spaces are all a direct result of the iPad user interface, by the way). I sometimes write long sentences, but you are the first person on English Wikipedia to tell me my writing style is difficult to interpret -- it would make a lot more sense that either (a) you don't have trouble interpreting what I am writing, and are just revenge-critiquing me because I pointed out how inscrutable your comments are, or (b) you have some kind of competence issue when it comes to long English sentences.

Anyway, do you really wanna know where the admins are at? I could tell you if you like? They've been ignoring this thread since the beginning, or reading it and laughing at how much of each other's time we are all wasting. The reason they ignored it for the first several hours was that you didn't provide them with any diffs, the names of the users you were reporting, or what kind of admin action you were seeking. After about Alex's third comment, the main reason became WP:TLDR. I guess if you are desperate, you could open a new subthread below here with a title like "===Boomerang proposal: One-week EW block and 3-month 1RR restriction for AlexTheWhovian===" or "===Boomerang: Indefinite "X-Men" TBAN for DisneyMetalhead===" (or whatever other proposal you might want to make, altthough I can guarantee you that any proposal for a sanction of either Tenebrae or Hotwiki will not garner positive support). This strategy basically worked for me with the TLDR thread on Swiss air force AFDs further up this page, so I would be a hypocrite if I told you not to try. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess if you are desperate, you could open a new subthread below here with a title like "===Boomerang proposal: One-week EW block and 3-month 1RR restriction for AlexTheWhovian===" or "===Boomerang: Indefinite "X-Men" TBAN for DisneyMetalhead===" (or whatever other proposal you might want to make, altthough I can guarantee you that any proposal for a sanction of either Tenebrae or Hotwiki will not garner positive support).

Hm. WP:NPA. Something like WP:IMITATE should be created for imitating adminship. Forcing a discussion for admins a certain way? Might be one for that. Anyone? I wonder why my posts were so long. Almost like there was an issue with you that needed addressing. -- Alex^TW 09:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Alex, if you insinuate one more time that non-admins are not allowed comment in ANI discussions, I will request that you be blocked from -- you know perfectly well that (Non-administrator comment)s are perfectly common, and are in fact widespread, but have now insinuated at least three times (I haven't been keeping count) that I have somehow been "impersonating an admin" simply by expressing an opinion in this discussion; it's getting really, really annoying to be attacked in this manner, and I shouldn't have to put up with it. There is no admin-impersonation here -- I explicitly stated in my very first comment that I am not an admin. You, on the other hand, did not -- by your own logic, you are the one imitating an admin. Anyway, if you or someone else wrote such an essay, it would almost immediately be radically altered to more properly reflect the community's opinion, or be userfied. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, non-admins are definitely allowed to comment. Happens all the time. But look up the definition of comment. Comment means giving your opinion. Not "you get a block, you get a block, you don't get a block". -- Alex^TW 09:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

C'mon, Alex, give me a break. Non-admins add solution proposals, including boomerang proposals, to ANI threads all the time. I've done it in two other threads currently visible on this page, and no one except you has ever accused me of impersonating an admin for doing so. The only difference between admins and non-admins is that admins are normally allowed more readily to implement said proposals (though usually not unilaterally, and never if they have already expressed an opinion). In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most proposed solutions on ANI come initially from non-admins, and a proposal that doesn't involve a block can even be closed and implemented by a non-admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed to disagree. Unless you want to pull the stats? Then separate the "proposals where I say you will be blocked and you won't be". Until then, I maintain that you join discussions just to propose blocks on every Tom, Dick and Harry that rocks up here. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 10:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(OUTDATED -- see below.) Okay, so we've established that whoever emailed you is someone who is a "[b]locked [editor who] can still follow pages, and [...] can still follow discussions as they unfold",[94] and was blocked because I joined an ANI discussion involving them and proposed that they be blocked. It's pretty hard to believe that you could get that impression yourself by checking all my contribs to ANI (or even just by examining my interactions with you in this one thread -- as I have said numerous times, I don't think any blocks should come of this), so I'd place money on your having been "fed" it by someone. I have to admit, it's a little disappointing that your not acting as a proxy for someone who was IBANned for stalking me. I was getting kinda nostalgic. (I wrote this before reading the comment below.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Especially those that are connected to the "sectarian cabal of editors who rule [...] with an iron fist". Your own words. How neutral of you. -- Alex^TW 10:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

...and now we know exactly who it was who emailed you. User:Drmies, could you ask our comics-focused mutual friend to stop stalking me and badmouthing me off-wiki? Not asking you to do anything else with this thread, though. As I have said numerous times, I don't think any blocks should come of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate" Interesting. Pinging a specific admin to influence your "discussion" with baseless accusations and no proof.

I am curious, though, since my statement had nothing to do with the blocked editor who emailed me. Whoever said I emailed them back? I'm not actually sure if they ever were on ANI. And now we're back to baseless accusations. I didn't check a single contribution of yours. You yourself stated that you're currently commenting on multiple sections here, another on which I believe you were not involved but request a block of the editor.

It's interesting. You refuse to provide proof, while demanding I provide proof in diffs. You accuse me of stalking, while you went deep into my contributions to pull random cases. You accuse of incivility, while attacking a whole group of editors, this is what my copy of your quote was for. You have no place here.

that your not acting as a proxy for someone you're*. Also, I don't think any blocks should come of this? What? I have lost all faith that ATW will get blocked and if no one is going to block DisneyMetalhead prove that you are now also a liar. -- Alex^TW 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, Jesus, can't you take a break from ANI? Every incident just gets buried in your screeds of ill-informed jabbering and derailed by your inability to grasp what is being asked, and incapability of coherence. All you do is make matters worse and put administrators off getting involved and actually fixing the issue at hand. Where do you find the time to write SO MUCH on EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT? Wind it back, you are literally going to break Wikipedia if you keep using it as a dumping ground for your stream of consciousness. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Amen to that. Wish I had this much spare time. Jobs and study are a part of my life, though, so. -- Alex^TW 14:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, it's insane. A quick character count shows a total of 623,586 on this current incident page. A STAGGERING 219,543 are Hijiri's. Over a third of this entire noticeboard is his wittering! Just look at the size he has inflated just this one incident. Note a distinct lack of admin involvment? That’s because to now resolve this, they will have to scan through a Bible of text, most of it misunderstandings, windy opinion pieces, misplaced authority and terrible arbitration on his part. Just like nearly every other incident on here that he has stoked. I don't know how he is still allowed on here. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Third party observer here. I noticed that Hijiri has pages upon pages of edits on this board in their edit history. If I'm assuming correctly, he/she seems embroiled in an almost constant state of conflict with one person or another. I think it's highly unusual for a non admin to have such extensive activity on this board, especially during the month of May. Perhaps an admin should step in and politely request that Hijiri takes a step back from this area?. This topic seems to be on a road to nowhere. If there's a status quo that needs to be respected, then perhaps an admin should leave a note on Hijiris page to resolve this issue? Just from reading the opening paragraph it seems that way. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

All right, I'm an admin, I'll comment. 62.255.118.6 and 82.15.11.237, IPs who avoid scrutiny have no standing to attack others on noticeboards. If you wish to troll users here, please log in to your account/s to do so. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC).

There is no law stating that you must create an account in order to take part in Wikipedia. You aren't assuming good faith calling people "trolls" when they provide a viewpoint or statistics that you don't like. I'm not trolling, I'm just stating a facts - (1) a third of the content of this noticeboard is written by Hijiri 88. (2) This enormous influx is burying issues and making them harder to resolve. (3) His contributions do little but fan the flames or start entirely new fires (this case a perfect example - a simple dispute has turned into screeds of text, confused circular arguments, hatted sections of waffle and basically, like 3 in 5 of every incident posted on ANI, has become the Hijiri Show. Tellingly, the only way to confront this observation, is to attempt to discredit it because it comes from an IP account. Weak stuff and doesn't change the facts. He isn't helping, doesn't actually say anything in his walls of text and should reign it in so people can actually use this board for what it's for. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You choose to misread. "IPs who avoid scrutiny" isn't the same thing as "IPs". I'm not telling you "you must create an account in order to take part in Wikipedia"; I'm asking you to log in to your account to comment on noticeboards. I don't believe you don't have one. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

For an admin, you are quick to assume bad faith when IP users give an opinion on here. Nobody has trolled anyone and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. I commented to point out that Hijiri has spent an excessive amount of time on this area, which is a fact you can easily verify by reviewing his/her edit history. This is my opinion, and not something that should be dismissed as trolling, that's bad faith. As an admin I think you should know better before throwing accusations like that around. There's also no rule that states IPs need an account to post here. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's very nice, IPs. Now, could you please disclose the names of your accounts? Logging out in order to post harassing messages is a violation of WP:SOCK. I have already elaborated numerous times why I have been more active on ANI and less active in article construction of late, but it isn't actually any of your business. The byte-count statistics are pointless because almost all of my longer comments are only long because I formatted them as responses to long comments by Alex and a couple of other disruptive users, in which I quoted pretty much their entire comments. By the way -- if you call me "insane" again, I will ask that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that the editor refuses to continue this discussion, I guess it can be closed with no action taken. When multiple editors state that you need to look at your behaviour, then I guess it's not a singular editor who has an issue. -- Alex^TW 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Woah -- when did this discussion become about me? I've only edited the X-Men talk page twice. Alex, you will eventually be blocked for your OWNing, your BATTLEGROUND behaviour, your gross incivility, and your constant, unprovoked personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you (let alone the unrepentant edit-warring). But it won't be today. This thread should be closed without action, but not because a random uninvolved third party commenter has decided to withdraw from the discussion ("refuses to continue the discussion", in your words). That's ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Here “Listen guys, wind it back – nobody needs to be banned. Stop edit warring and try to find an actual consensus by a range of editors of which version to go with – one being WITH the contended line, one being WITHOUT it. It doesn’t matter which one it is at present, no article has to be perfect RIGHT NOW, just take steps to improve it going forward, in a way as many people feel happy with as possible.” Close. No need for the endless spamming of zero content waffle which has achieved nothing and amounted to zero resolution. ANI is not here to feed one users need for constant, relentless attention. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 canvassing an admin to influence the outcome of discussion

1. This discussion is irrelevant to the thread and is actively detracting from it. 2. If the accusations had a basis in reality, the many experienced editors on this board would have intervened. I am hatting this discussion to prevent further disruption. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per WP:CANVASS. I would like to direct users to [95]. Surely this is against the rules for Hijiri to recruit an admin with his bad faith accusations against us, for simply giving our opinions on this topic in good faith? Only minutes later did an admin, who I assume is on friendly terms with Hijiri come along with unwarranted accusations without basis in fact against myself and another IP user above. Could a neutral admin please advise? Surely this is against the rules for users to influence an admin who clearly didn't have two sides of the story before commenting? 82.15.11.237 (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC) You didn't provide any "opinions on this topic in good faith"; you showed up and posted an attack on a third-party commenter, that had nothing to do with the topic of discussion. And you are not the first random IPs to try this; Bishonen has helped me out with issues like this in the past, which is why I went to her. CANVASS has nothing to do with it, since I explicitly told her I don't particularly care if she reads through the discussion and comments on it. I only wanted her to address your showing up specifically to troll me without apparently having any interest in the topic of discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC) For someone who spends an excessive amount of time here, I thought you would be aware of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:FAITH2. It appears not. Please read them. You have thrown nothing but bad faith accusations at myself and another user for daring to give an opinion you don't like. Your WP:CANVASS is clear with the evidence posted above. It amounted to nothing more than you recruiting the admin to 'deal' with us, with nothing but your assertion to go on. I have not trolled you in the slightest, and I will happily open up a case against you if you don't stop with the hostile accusations against me. I will leave this open for an admin who I pray is open minded to give an opinion on. Because I want this dealt with. You have no right to act in such a hostile manner towards me. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Furthermore, I believe Hijiri 88 has crossed into WP:PA. To clarify, a user who has been a member of Wikipedia for 12 years(According to their profile), has thrown allegations of "Socking" "Trolling" among other things at myself and another user with no evidence to support his/her claims. Contrary to what this editor may believe, their own personal opinion does not count as evidence. I commented on this topic in good faith and have had allegation after allegation thrown at me by someone who really should know better. Is this the way editors on Wikipedia are supposed to behave? By treating IP editors like garbage? I find it completely unacceptable for someone to behave that way. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC) from What I can see, bishonen is an uninvolved, neutral administrator. if there was canvassing, bishonen would have (most likely) taken care of it directly. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC) With respect, Hijiri 88 went onto Bishonens page when he/she had no reason too to recruit said admin to get involved in this issue. So many assumptions have been made about me by Hijiri 88 without basis in fact or reality. But the fact remains after a message was left on Bishonens page, an message was left by Bishonen who seemed influenced by Hijiri 88 accusing me and the other IP editor of "trolling". This after all is the admin board, if there was anything untoward in any of our messages, an admin would have stepped in, or reverted us. Hijiri 88 even admits above that they seem to be on friendly terms with one another. I don't mean to sound rude, but my edit history is available for all to see. I add television ratings to certain shows weekly. I'm exclusively an IP editor and anyone who isn't quick to assume bad faith can see that. I have this board bookmarked after having an unplesant encounter with another editor which I was thinking about reporting, but he/she backed off and I left that be. I happened to comment on this topic recently because it was so large and vast and pointed out what I observed. There's nothing wrong with that. Certainly there's nothing to deserve so many bad faith accusations by Hijiri 88. I have a problem with two things. The first: A "So called" experienced Wikipedia editor of 12 years throwing bad faith assumptions at me without evidence. The second: An admin on friendly terms with Hijiri 88 accusing me of trolling without evidence. Both of these editors have violated the called "Don't assume bad faith" of other Wikipedia users rule. And Hijiri 88 also the rule about personal attacks. I would like to know what is to be done if anything. Or will Hijiri 88s extensive history on this board protect him/her from punishment? Enlighten me. I think any and all IP users should be free to comment on this board without fear of bad faith accusations thrown at them. I've done nothing to deserve that treatment from Hijiri 88. Certainly I'll think twice about commenting here again after the unpleasant experience with Hijiri 88, who has attempted to bully me and the other IP away with these false accusations. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC) It's not unreasonable to express doubts about you, an IP editor who has never commented on AN/ANI before, choosing Hijiri (who you say you've never interacted with before, right?) to comment on, when Hijiri just happens to have a history of being attacked by people he's had previous disputes with logging out of their accounts to do so. Maybe you have an account, maybe you don't, but if you don't, you were quite unlucky in picking the subject of your first AN/ANI criticism. I've about had it with Hijiri inserting himself into almost every dispute there is, with usually ineffective or harmful results. But an IP editor with no history with Hijiri chiming in like this, is also going to be ineffective or harmful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC) I knew I would be at a disadvantage here making a complaint about a user with an established history with many editors here. But without a doubt if I had made the claims he/she has done against any editor here, such as trolling, socking etc. I would have people lining up on my talk page accusing me of Bad faith and Personal attacks. Why the staggering hypocrisy? It's his/her word against mine, he/she has no evidence to support the claims made about me. I have not been rude or abusive to him/her here. I fully explained my purpose for being here and I commented specifically on a user that stood out the most in the wall of text. You can't honestly expect me to know or care about Hijiri 88s experiences on this board before commenting. Give me a break, you are excusing his WP:PA behaviour with an attempt to place blame on me. Personal opinion is not evidence. Hijiri 88 has violated the rules about assuming bad faith about other editors and the no personal attack rules. He/she has presented no evidence to support his/her claims against me, but persisted none the less and recruited a friendly admin in violation of the WP:CANVASS rule. That's three separate rule violations committed by Hijiri 88. Can an admin who is neutral on this subject and not a personal friend of Hijiri 88 please deal with this. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC) You can't honestly expect me to know or care about Hijiri 88s experiences on this board before commenting. That's interesting, because in your first post in this thread, you had this to say: Third party observer here. I noticed that Hijiri has pages upon pages of edits on this board in their edit history. That sound you heard was your remaining credibility being flushed down the toilet. Lepricavark (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry, what? It's not against the rules to click on someones edit history on Wikipedia. I mentioned that Hijiri 88 had an extraordinary amount of activity on this board. That doesn't mean I would know what that activity is. That's an absurd assumption for anyone to make. You talk about credibility yet you've destroyed your own by making such a ludicrous statement like that. That doesn't lessen the fact that Hijiri 88 made bad faith accusations against me with no evidence. Recruited an admin with the intention of trying to bully myself and the other IP user away from this topic. And continued with such accusations despite my attempts to reason with him/her. I have broken no rules here, I am simply asking for an admin to enforce the rules here. Also, in the interest of not wanting to inflate this massively bloated topic further. I won't be commenting further until an admin looks into this issue. It would be greatly appreciated if the admin dealing with this case leaves a message on my talk page so I know to return. Or if the admin in question has taken action, a simple note to say what's happened. Thanks. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

CLOSE this entire section

This situation has very quickly gotten off-course and completely in left-field. It started off as an attempt to end the edit-warring, and owning behavior on the X-Men (film series) page and the talk page associated therewith. It has since become a bunch of turd-throwing and a new conversation regarding User:Hijiri88's poor behavior. For the record - yes you did WP:CANVAS and yes you are WP:PAing all along. Someone else creat a new discussion/issue on this page for that, and let's close this one about the X-Men edit-warring as this discussion is no longer about that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou, unfortunately it looks like Hijiri 88 will get away with his inexcusable behaviour because of his/her history with the admin/users here. It appears if you spend an extraordinary amount of time on this board, you are above the law. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop this harassment 82.15.11.237. —JJBers 20:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'm just a nobody who reads the noticeboards from time to time. I had no idea Hijiri88 has been mixed up in prior conflict both on and off of Wikipedia, which has resulted in old 'opponents' hiding behind anonymity to continue the feud. My jumping in as an IP, twice on Hijiri88, doesn't look very good and perhaps I would have thought twice about it if I knew the user was a part of an ongoing issue. That said, both times I felt I made a valid point, and both times I believed my point would help Wikipedia. Cheers 118.6 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

141.126.187.36

As soon as protection was lifted from each season of RuPaul's Drag Race, anon IP 141.126.187.36 began making the same serial, non-consensus edits that the articles were protected against. I noted on his talk page: "You are aware that discussion is ongoing at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race and no consensus has been reached to allow personal, POV interpretation of a primary source. If you continue knowingly making non-consensus edits after being warned, that is considered disrupting Wikipedia and an admin will be asked to intervene."

His response? "How about you stop. The consensus has been reached a long time ago. Fuck off."

As the link to the Drag Race talk page shows, no consensus was reached. Over the past two days, this anon IP has made no edits other than deliberately disruptive ones. He is not here to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional note: Another editor earlier this month had warned him about disruptive editing: [96]. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ru Paul's Whatnot AGAIN? Can we just drop all coverage of that? It's not worth it. EEng 18:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• • And the anon IP has just started up again. I've even asked for the articles to be protected, but there appears to be a backup. --21:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Enough's enough. I've protected Series 2-8 of Drag Race for 6 months (there doesn't appear to be much disruption on Series 1 or the current one) and blocked 141.126.187.36 for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gayle McLaughlin

For some time, an editor with the user name "Gayle McLaughlin" has been making drastic and largely unsourced changes to the Gayle McLaughlin article. I think that editor is using multiple accounts. See here, here, and here. User:Wikibymp is posting on my talk page about edits that they has consistently sought to undo without proof from User:Gayle McLaughlin.--TM 23:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Needs a username block anyway. EEng 02:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree.  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What if an administrator uses my IP address to attack my computer ?

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'm not sure whether this is a right place to put this question about an administrator's ethic and privilege, but I would ask anyway.

Could an administrator see IP address of every user ? what if after obtaining some particular IP address, he uses it to attack the user's computer by sending malwares to the IP for example ?

I've mainly edited at Vietnamese version since I need to collect more data before editing some articles at this English version. About a week ago, when editing an article related to Zhuang people and the Vietnamese's origin [97] at the Vietnamese version, an administrator suddenly came up and reverted my edit. After that, I could not access the article for 5 minutes while still being able to access other webpages. I thought he checked IP address of my account and blocked it out of his discontent with my edits. If my assumption is correct, then it's very unreasonable because an privileged user was exploiting and misusing Wikipedia functions to cause trouble to other users. So now I'm asking who would be responsible if an administrator misuses IP addresses obtained from users' accounts to attack their computers ? Bookworm8899 (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators cannot see IP addresses of logged-in users. A small group of people called checkusers can. However, the acceptable circumstances for use of checkuser are heavily restricted. I don't know if the Vietnamese Wikipedia even has local checkusers. Regardless, though, knowing someone's IP address is not magic. To pull off an attack so targeted that it would keep you off a single page but allow you access to all others is not something anyone could have pulled off instantaneously; it would've taken serious work. (And if they wanted to do that, why restrict it to 5 minutes?) You just ran into some kind of glitch. Regardless, to accuse someone of cracking into your machine, you need pretty solid evidence, not just the fact that you interacted with them and suddenly something acted weird. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Checkusers are bound by the privacy policy not to reveal IP addresses of users except in exceptional cases (abuse), so this probably did not happen. However, if you feel that there was a abuse, you might want to contact the Ombudsman commission that can investigate such actions. But rest at ease, your computer issue is probably unrelated. -- Luk ^talk 09:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Occam's razor: There was simply a perfectly routine server or network glitch that interrupted service for 5 minutes. WMF servers are usually quite reliable, but also imperfect and do occasionally have a glitch. The Internet is frequently unreliable in a variety of ways, with 5-ish minute glitches being relatively common. WMF take any misuse of the checkuser powers extremely seriously, and CU activity is logged, so it's very unlikely (in my opinion). It's also very difficult at a technical level to remotely perform that type of attack (where everything else works fine, but a single page or site has is blocked). That's assuming you didn't get a "you have been blocked from editing" message from Wikipedia, which is technically very easy for any administrator to do (without ever knowing your IP). Overall, I side with Occam on this one, it was just a transient glitch. Murph9000 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. I feel much lighter now. Thanks. Bookworm8899 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2017 (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.

Confusion.Clarification is requested.

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 reverted an IP editor who eviscerated a whole section of this page. Per ARBPIA, I was appropriately reverting an abusive intrusion

The text I restored had the words:'Israel has been steadily demolishing homes of Palestinians claiming a variety of rationales.’ This restoration does not count as a revert.

• User:Debresser 14:38, 21 May 2017‎ quickly intervened to modify the text I restored, rewriting

'Israel has demolished homes of Palestinians claiming a variety of rationales’.

I could this as revert 1.

The original text (Amira Hass 'Red Cross Stops Providing Emergency Tents to Palestinians in Jordan Valley,' Haaretz 6 February 2014) does not use the past tense ‘has demolished’ or demolished with a date attached. It uses the present tense: that the number of demolitions in the Jordan Valley 'is increasing over a 2 year period or that Israel 'has stepped up' demolitions. Therefore Debresser's edit distorted the general thrust of the source by changing an increase in home demolitions over a two year period, into a fact of the past (has demolished).

Since Debresser modified the text I restored from IP abuse, that counts as a revert.

• Though his edit sunk the implication clearly set forth in the source (that Israeli demolitions are not a pasrt reality but ongoing and increasing), I did not modify it. I added fresh text preceding it to clarify that this process was, contrary to the misimpression Debresser made, continuous over time since 1967, providing a new source.

• 21 May 2017 Debresser reverted me, making his intervention the second modification of that page in one day.

• I alerted Debresser on his talk page that he had made two reverts and asked him to restore the removed text, while giving three arguments pointing out serious problems in the ostensible reasons given for the revert in his edit summary. He said he would think about it, but did not reply, either there or on the talk page to my serious notes on the total inadequacy and inaccuracy (no policy base) motivating the revert.
• I waited two days. Since Debresser did not reply on his talk page or on the Jordan Valley (Middle East) talk page to the substance of my 3 objections, I restored the text.

Debresser quickly reverted this too and posted a complaint on my page threatening AE action.

I cannot see where I broke the IR rule. I think he broke it. But if he is correct, then it means in practice that the AE ruling permits any editor to undo any other editor’s work on an IP page, and, if they are just 2 editors, insist that the removed content cannot be restored without his consensus. In practical terms, consensus would mean ‘without the permission, or arrangements being made, with the reverting editor.’ This means the reverter is omnipotent. It means, in practice that an editor of long standing like myself, cannot add anything to an IP page without having it subject to a revert challenge that sinks it by saying I cannot restore it, or even edit anything, without second or third party consensus. Is this what the ARBPIA ruling is now allowing?

The ruling says:'editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit.' I set forth three objections to the irrational edit summary Debresser used to make his revert and he refused over 2 days to reply to any or each point as one can observe here. I took this as a refusal to engage in the consensus-gaining process.

Could administrators sort out this ambiguity by clarifying this please.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I warned Nishidani because of another issue. He added some infromation,[98], which I then removed,[99], and he restored[100] in violation of WP:ARBPIA3. He specifically admitted in he edit summary: "Restoring, as per remarks on Debresser's page, a text improperly removed on grounds that have no policy justification." I left him a clear explanation and warning on his talkpage,[101] so I fail to see why he is trying to pretend here the issue is any other. This is not his first encounter with WP:ARBPIA3, and he knows well enough that a restoring a contested edit is explicitly prohibited in the WP:ARBPIA area without prior establishing consensus on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If you must bold my remarks:'"Restoring, as per remarks on Debresser's page. I.e. I gave 3 precise reasons on your talk page, and you said you'd examine them, and then fell silent. I.e. you didn't reply there to my attempts to make you reason on the dispute. Consensus cannot be gained by reverting and then refusing to respond to questions or comments. So I fetl entitled after 2 days of silence to re-add that material, since you refused to enter the consensus cycle.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You never opened a talkpage discussion, as you are supposed to per WP:ARBPIA3, so I had a reasonable expectation that you agreed with my arguments as I explained them in the edit summary. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As for his accusation as though I violated anything here. Nishidani's claim that "Since Debresser modified the text I restored from IP abuse, that counts as a revert" is so obviously untrue, that I can not accept that an experienced editor like Nishidani, who is active here over 10 years, makes this assertion in good faith. I think I scared the wits out of him when I pointed out on his talkpage that he had violated WP:ARBPIA3, in which area he has been warned several times on WP:AE already, so he decided to tried and whitewash his knowing violation with an attempt to make me look bad, which should WP:BOOMERANG on him. I recommend a strong reprimand or a straightforward extended block for his WP:ARBPIA3 violation. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2017 (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.

Contentious discussion on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

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's a very contentious discussion going on at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#Moving Fox News controversy stuff (archived link) between Volunteer Marek and Anythingyouwant. I mention in the discussion my concerns about violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF on the part of VM. VM says they're combating Anythingyouwant's alleged attacks. What I see is VM repeatedly attacking Anythingyouwant for allegedly not caring enough about the feelings of Seth Rich's family. Since I'm kind of involved in this discussion I invite others to take a look. ^Falling_Gravity 07:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That is some emotionally charged discussion, but Volunteer Marek doesn't owe Anythingyouwant any additional good faith based on what I see. Anythingyouwant was pushing to add very questionable content[102] to an article subject to WP:BLP, and now that it's been debunked, wants any record of it removed from the article. This is classic WP:GAMING and WP:POVPUSHING, and based on my observations in many other articles over the past year, it's Anythingyouwant's modis operandi. At some point, Anythingyouwant will probably be topic banned from post-1932 American politics articles once it becomes clear to others that this behavior is a pattern. I think VM should take a voluntary break from the article to gain some perspective. No one should get that worked up over an encyclopedia article and other editors should be able to protect it from shenanigans. - MrX 14:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"At some point, Anythingyouwant will probably be topic banned from post-1932 American politics articles". You mean "At some point, Anythingyouwant will probably be topic banned from post-1932 American politics articles AGAIN". He's already been banned for six months and then jumped right back into WP:TENDENTIOUS editing when the ban expired.

And yeah I get worked up about a Wikipedia article when it's a BLP and editors are trying to insert material which can cause real life harm and grief to living people (the deceased's family). I get really worked up when these same editors then try to pretend they only have their victims best interests at heart. Anyway, I'm not actually actively making edits to the article itself (though if the BLP vios - seriously that article should be on perm protection just like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, it's same kind of crap - start again, I am going to remove them) and if Anythingyouwant simply drops the topic I'm happy to let it go as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been following the discussions there very closely and I think both of you need to take a day or two off from the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The thread at talk:Seth Rich pretty much speaks for itself. VM only confirms here that he is a liar; I have never "been banned for six months" from post-1932 American politics articles. I was banned from October 27 to November 9, 2016 because I thought it might not be a good idea to insinuate in the lead of the Donald Trump BLP that he's a rapist.[103][104] I have zero confidence that anything useful will come of any proceeding at ANI or AE or ArbCom that involves me. But thanks so much for letting me have my say before the axe falls. Wikipedia is a noble concept, but the details are not adequately arranged to promote neutrality (see my user page). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right you were banned "until the election is over", my mistake (6 months is the usual length for an WP:AE topic ban). But hey, thanks for illustrating my point and making yourself look like a glowing hypocrite by calling me a "liar", over a simple mistake.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I retract "liar" now that you've been caught at it, and substitute that you're careless and indifferent to facts, insulting beyond belief, and among the most counterproductive and contrary editors on Wikipedia. You'll get no AGF from me after all I've seen. As I said, the thread in question speaks for itself. I might add that MrX is not far behind you in this regard. He says above regarding my edits that I want "any record of it removed from the article". As usual, MrX is either delusional or simply doing whatever he can to get rid of me, or both, given that my proposal at the talk page in question was to move a section to which I contributed absolutely nothing. Was MrX lying above? Of course not, he is merely deliberately mistaken; does that sound nicer when I phrase it that way? I hope so. The one thing I regret is singling out these two editors when there are so many many many more at Wikipedia with whom they work quite effectively, including admins. Because it is all tolerated. It's not a bug, it's a feature. MrX's accusation above is all the more preposterous given that VM is on record seeking to have this entire article about Seth Rich deleted; I oppose such deletion, and have said so many times at AfD, and yet MrX falsely accuses me of wanting any record removed, rather than accusing his buddy VM who actually does want that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, I may be delusional about any number of things, but I'm not deliberately misrepresenting anything here. Examples of you exhibiting WP:GAMING and WP:POVPUSHING are well-documented and I believe you know that. I'm explicitly not trying to get rid of you. I've practically begged you to change your approach; to be less aggressive in your editing; more rational in your arguments; and to accept consensus, rather than constantly end run around it. I wonder if there is any part of you that is capable of accepting responsibility for your own conduct that make editing difficult for others. - MrX 23:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

MrX, you ought to know better than to put slanted POV-pushing garbage into BLPs, but you do so (or support it) all the time. Most recently here. And, no, I do not "know" that any WP:GAMING or WP:POVPUSHING by me has been "documented". What I do know is that there are a lot of bullshit artists on Wikipedia, and I am very proud not to be among them. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll let others decide if you deflected and if that link is actually indicative of me "put[ting] slanted POV-pushing garbage into BLPs".- MrX 23:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. I have just objected to your continued propagandizing here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Some philosophically interesting and possibly helpful (or unhelpful) reference material: Invasion of privacy. It can generally be said that when people become involved in a news event, voluntarily or involuntarily, they forfeit aspects of the right to privacy. A person somehow involved in a matter of legitimate public interest normally can be written about with safety. "Privacy", AP Stylebook. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not strictly relevant to the conduct issue being discussed here, as such - because we're not going to adjudicate which side of a content dispute has the right of it on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• My thread above identifies problems with Volunteer Marek: editing in tandem, edit-warring, aggressive/personalized comments. This complaint highlights similar problems at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich and Anythingyouwant links an AE request from October showing the same behavior.

Even ignoring WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY I look at this list of DS and edit-warring complaints from multiple editors in multiple articles and wonder how VM is still editing – no blocks, no topic bans – the behavior just continues.

2016.

1. September
2. October
3. October
4. November
5. December
6. December

2017

1. January
2. March
3. March
4. April
5. May
6. May

And this isn't a recent or temporary problem. In searching I found this request, from 2012. Anyone who's interacted with VM will recognize the patterns instantly, even the wording of his attacks is the same:

VM then came to the article, reverted a lot (incl 3RR breach), assumed bad faith from the beginning, and insulted me on the talk page. [...]

When I returned, I received a wikimail from VM, calling me a shithead [...]

Thereafter, VM came to the article and already in the first 24 hours violated 3RR [...]

What triggered this AE request is the following talk page posting I read this morning, where VM attacks me as follows:
"You're lying your ass off," "little fake-diff," "you engage in these kind of deceitful tactics regularly," "*YOU* are misrepresenting the Bock source," "you're mistaking 'UNDUE' with 'IDONTLIKEIT'," "it's the same nationalist little group that's been running rough shod over Wikipedia content policies for years," "tag teaming," "your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher," "ganging up on me just to gang up" [...]

Volunteer Marek has also assumed bad faith, insulted and accused other people recently (Jimbo got annoyed too [59]) so it is not just me but a general problem, as his block log and these random reactions indicate [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. [...]

Volunteer Marek warned for incivility.
warned not to leave aggressive messages [...]

Marek's answer was extremely aggressive [136] ("Tell you what Herkus..." followed by the ususal allegations of "disruptive","tendentious" and "battlegroundy" editing, hardly a constructive way to react). [,,,]

A stern and final warning would be my prescription for this [...]

VolunteerMarek’s actions are below any reasonable standard [...]

The mere length of the measures already implemented with regard to Volunteer Marek (listed by Skäpperöd under History of disruption by VM and Molobo) reveals, that a more permanent solution is needed. [...] he is constantly disruptive and edit warring (just on 25 July he broke 3RR, as explained here, followed by a similar violation on 31 July, as explained by Skäpperöd above). Add to this his constant incivility [140], [141], [142], [143] and the harassment of users with a clean blocklog and in good standing like Skäpperöd to get the full picture. Where battleground is, there's Volunteer Marek. Where Volunteer Marek is, there's incivility.

His defense then is the same as it is now, that every other editor is the problem and they're conspiring:

The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes [...]

I truly encourage anyone responding to read through the 2012 request carefully. If the article and editor names were changed it could be filed again today.

Look at his "discussion" with Anythingyouwant on Talk:Seth Rich [section], the entire section is almost all uncivil personal attacks. You can see in his responses there and here how (understandably) upset this has made Anythingyouwant.

Look at this open edit-warring report. His defense is: the violation doesn't count because the editor complaining is "bad" and the editor VM reverted is also bad and reverting bad editors doesn't count.

How many years can this continue with administrators and the community unable to stop it? Even in articles where topic bans are handed out like candy unambiguous and repeated violations by VM are ignored. It leaves editors on the receiving end completely helpless, often finding themselves blocked or topic-banned in response. It has to end. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, I knew immediately as I read the first sentence of this tl:dr post - the end of it was not on the screen so I didn't see the signature - that it was you Lambden. So. James J. Lambden has been following my edits around, reverting me, and starting spurious edit wars on multiple articles. So far he's managed to weasel out of any sanctions because the intent part of WP:STALK and WP:HARASS can be hard to prove and because he claims he "just edits in the same topic area". But that's exactly what he's doing. In fact, he'll deny it, then immediately turn around and do just that as a sort of a taunt. Hell, he just recently showed up to a discussion which had nothing to do with him, on another user's talk page just to attack and insult me [105], going so far as to call me a "swine" (see also this and [106] which shows the gall and hypocrisy involved in calling me "aggressive"). And he can trudge out all the WP:AE reports he wants where some editors said bad things against me, but here is the part he's not telling you: in almost all cases, it was THE OTHER EDITORS who got banned, or sanctioned, not me. I mean, you can always find somebody who says shit about you here, it's Wikipedia. Lambden is just enabling and encouraging this kind of character assassination with these kinds of comments.

So that's your background right there. Frankly, Lambden's obsessive actions and stalking have been creeping the fuck out of me for a few months now and I would appreciate it if someone intervened to muzzle that kind of behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

More false accusations to distract from your bad behavior. Your next step (based on past behavior) will be to flood this thread with walls of text to bury valid arguments. It's unfortunate that this strategy is so successful.

In what way is going through your talk page version history to compile this list "stalking" ? I even filtered out the accusations that looked unfair or incorrect. If some made it through tell me which and I'll strike them but these all look like violations to me.

Below it sounds like you're saying if the editor who noticed your edit-warring violation was later banned the edit-warring doesn't count, but I know that can't be what you're saying.

VM is right on one count: I have gone through his edits over the last week to find personalized comments. Below is that list. These come from article talk pages where comments should focus on content. Lift that restriction and go back further and you'll find worse but there's a base-level incivility always present:

• Please try to keep it straight. Even "I know you are but what am I" requires some effort. (Link)

• Kudos for finding the "most obscure but still just relevant enough to justify it" article to hide this stuff in though. That does take a certain level of skill. (Link)

• Where the fuck was your consideration for Rich's family then???????? You don't get to play the good guy here Anythingyouwant (Link)

• your continued presence, and these continuing deeply hypocritical claims about you pretending to do it "for the family" have ZERO credibility after your earlier comments and edits. Let others handle this. (Link)

• So here's some advice - drop this now and go back to Info Wars or whatever and leave this alone. (Link)

• What's sad is your inability to let it go and this obsessive need to attack me directly. Let it goooooo. Let it goooooo. Your comments never bothered me anyway. (Link)

• And oh yeah Khirurg, all that "me too!" comments do is suggest that you're only tag teaming but not actually contributing to the discussion. (Link)

• The fact that you're willing to engage in mass murder denial has been established by your actions, the only thing that your comment adds, is that you now explicitly confirm it. (Link)

• Not true, as explained above. How many times are you going to try to pull these stunts? (Link)

• How about you explain how you came to edit edit war on this article? (Link)

• Seriously, quit it with the strawman and making up bullshit claims about what I do or do not believe. And the sophomoric rhetoric. (Link)

• Arrghghgh. Stop it! We've done this. This isn't fucking Groundhog's Day where we relive the same damn discussion over and over and over and over and over and over again until it works out to your satisfaction. Your behavior is past being disruptive at this point. (Link)

• So much for your attempts at deflection and whatbaoutism. (Link)

James J. Lambden (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

My "accusations" are perfectly true. Or are you going to deny that you showed up at Thucydides talk page with the only purpose of insulting me, even though the conversation had nothing to do with you?

And seriously, for a guy who can't resist but to post long walls of text full of character assassination and bullshit WP:ASPERSIONS you sure have some gall in accusing others of "flooding with walls of text"

Go away Lambden. Stop stalking me and stop harassing me. Your behavior has crossed the "uber creepy" threshold some time ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior has crossed the "uber creepy" threshold some time ago. Even in a thread complaining about your personal insults you can't resist personal insults. This is not behavior that will change without intervention. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is a diff showing an admin noting that you have indeed been warned about your stalking of me [107]. And what's worse? Engaging in creepy stalking of another user on Wikipedia, like you're doing, or having the oh-so-horrible-temerity to be annoyed by it and call it out like I'm doing? WP:DUCK buddy. Stop acting in an uber-creepy way and then I won't have to call it that. Problem solved. Your stalking and harassment is what needs intervention, not the fact that people point it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And you know what's a personal insult? I mean, a real, unprovoked, gratuitous, uncivil , made-on-another-person's-talkpage-in-a-matter-unrelated-to-you personal insult? Calling somebody a "swine", like you did here? Wanna get all sanctimonious now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your diff links to an admin's claim that you accused me of stalking which you now use as evidence that your accusation is valid.. I didn't call you anything, please learn to appreciate metaphor. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, you're making stuff up again. Here is what my diff links to, direct quote: " James J. Lambden has been warned about stalking by Volunteer Marek on May 2 and again on May 11 (...) I think that JJL's recent editing suggests problematic behaviours beyond removing edits from article talk pages".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I disagree. This is not all about Volunteer Marek. I've got to agree with MrX on every point he's made. Anythingyouwant makes editing impossible for other editors. I don't know Volunteer Marek all that well, but I have seen him apologize to others and be honestly forthright and sincere about it. Whereas, Anything spends all his time blaming others. It's always the other editor's fault. And he does not keep his word. Just recently he violated the 1RR on Donald Trump. See here. He knew he could be blocked and immediately started saying he would stay away from the article. Then MastCell comes along and closes it in good faith believing Anythingyouwant has self-banned. But no sooner does MastCell do that, then Anythingyouwant comes back and says otherwise here. As for Volunteer Marek, I think Anythingyouwant moves the goal posts constantly in a discussion and winds people up until he gets a negative response. Volunteer Marek is not editing in vacuum. If a topic ban is being considered, it must include Anythingyouwant. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I voluntarily pledged to stop editing the Donald Trump article, and all of my edits since then have been to that talk page only. SW3 is thus deliberately mistaken. Additionally, as if it were even relevant here, I broke 1RR at the Donald Trump BLP in a pig's eye (another deliberate mistake by SW3 and he knows that User:Ad Orientem rejected his silly 1RR accusation). I pledged to stop editing that BLP because a lot of editors were tiring of the battleground between me and SW3. So I unilaterally surrendered to SW3, and SW3 shows his appreciation this way, which should demonstrate to any reasonable person who was responsible for the battlefield at the Donald Trump BLP. Wikipedia is badly broken, so if I get banned you really will be putting me out of my misery. It will be your loss, not mine. I knew where this section would be headed the second I saw it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what's been going on. You bring the battlefield to every page you go to. But you do prove my point that you blame everybody but you. Thank you. I rest my case. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And @Anythingyouwant: You mentioned Ad Orientem as finding you innocent of the 1RR vio.You obviously failed to read that NeilN would have blocked you. Speaking of Ad Orientem, he left this on your talk page regarding your behavior: here. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I cannot believe that after I voluntarily let you do whatever you want at the Donald Trump article by voluntarily stopping my edits there, you have the gall to come here now to hound me about a bogus 1RR accusation that is as stale as matzoh. User:NeilN must have been high on something when he vaguely suggested that Ad Orientem might have been mistaken about the 1RR. In any event, User:MelanieN quite correctly discussed "SW3 inflating what ought to be minor content disagreements into what they apparently hope will be the ultimate case to get the other person sanctioned." I am the other person, and you seem to still have your fangs in my backside same inflationary attitude. This is how Wikipedia works: POV pushers try to control content by getting rid of editors with whom they disagree. It's a shameful, misery-making racket. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If only you would. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Anythingyouwant's arguments on Seth Rich talk page were:

(1) When the US News article was first published information sourced to the article should be included

(2) Now that the article (or aspects of it) is contradicted by substantially more sources the claims should be removed

I don't agree they should be removed but it's not a bad-faithed argument as VM suggests and it's not definitely something that justifies insults and taunting. VM's comments there were 10% content 90% personal. No situation should justify that or admin allow it with DS at their disposal IMHO.

And what of the long list of violations above not involving Anythingyouwant? This behavior isn't restricted to one editor or one article. It's pervasive and consistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not a "long list of violations", so stop lying. That's just a list you compiled - fitting perfectly in with your WP:STALKing behavior - of instances where somebody said something negative about me. Half those people have been banned, because they were disruptive. The rest are either misunderstandings (Martenau - who thought that consecutive edits count as separate reverts) or situations which were amicably resolved (of course you don't provide those diffs). Go away Lambden. Stop stalking me. You show up to any article where I have a disagreement and turn a minor dispute into a flaming edit war. You show up to any drama board where I'm mentioned to pursue your grudge and harassment. You keep a blacklist in your user space of all the times that you think it was so fucking unfair that I didn't get blocked. You even show up to OTHER USERS' talk pages to insult me. Go away.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have latched on to an admin's honest misunderstanding of my sanction analysis table which is plainly not a blacklist (which column and table records the supposed blacklist?) because it gives you an advantage. This is the 2nd or 3rd time you've made this accusation. It's dishonest and offensive. Either provide evidence or strike the accusation and apologize. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you are here in good faith, but you need to look again at Anythingyouwant's edits. He's there to stir the pot. He selectively picks his issues and then goes into battle. He knows these suggestions will be contentious. That's his point of being there. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I can only comment on Anything's arguments on that talk page which were reasonable and just as importantly, civil. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Well in that case, please read what Ad Orientem had to say about Anythingyouwant's behavior on Donald Trump talk: . That's exactly what he does everywhere he goes. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That very stale notice by User:Ad Orientem began with the words "Some editors are becoming concerned...." I would give it more credence if he had been bold enough to name himself among those "some editors" (among whom you were the primary member). I subsequently pledged voluntarily to stop editing the BLP in question to avoid your hounding, and here you are now with more. I repeat that User:MelanieN discussed "SW3 inflating what ought to be minor content disagreements into what they apparently hope will be the ultimate case to get the other person sanctioned." If you finally succeed in your ultimate goal, it will be a great satisfaction to me to not be editing at Wikipedia anymore. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: You might take a moment to understand what you present as accusatory evidence—all of it, not just the part that suits your immediate purpose. The quote from AO includes, While your motives are not in question... which is directly opposed to your persistent AGF failure, e.g. He's there to stir the pot. You are not making an objective, constructive contribution to this discussion. My suggestion, should you care, would be to recuse on the grounds of longstanding personal conflict. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek did use the edit note of "remove per WP:HOAX and WP:BLP. Do not add this idiotic nonsense again" in the article which is rather Incivil and also considering he has several blocks from personal attacks or incivility block log. That's not too outrageous, but certainly uncalled for and only brings more tensions in situations like this. --Pudeo (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You damn right I did. But that's not "incivil". What's "incivil" is adding ... well, idiotic nonsense to a BLP and doing so repeatedly AFTER it's been pointed out that the info is a HOAX which violates BLP. And the user who was doing this was rightly blocked [108]. (And I only have one block for "personal attacks", from User:Drmies, whom I get along with fine (and another one, a bullshit one, from an admin that shortly afterward got de-sysopped for making bad blocks)).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The inevitable result of mixing content issues with behavior issues. Sigh. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Content issues can be behavioral issues. That being said, my advice is for both parties to sit down and share a nice warm cup of shutthefuckup. Take a voluntary 2-day IBAN/TBAN from that article and calm down. Any BLP vios will be dealt with (I actually just watchlisted that page after finding it through a completely unrelated discussion), and if a pattern of pushing a political POV emerges, it can be reported to AE and dealt with there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we please get some admin attention? This has needlessly turned personal and now spans multiple pages. Can the parties here please take a day or two off? If this keeps up I'm sure some topic bans will start dropping and then we lose these editors and their talents. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. As soon as certain users stop posting disgusting attacks against me, I will stop responding. In fact, I was gonna ignore Anythingyouwant anyway, until James J. Lambden showed up and poured gasoline on this shitpile and got it roaring again (his standard mo).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the current Wikipedia culture allows and even encourages us to blame our bad behavior on the actions of others does not mean we are required to do so. Each of us has that choice to make, and our choice is never permanent. Best of luck changing yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please no "as soon as" remarks VM; it just means the stick has not been dropped. Both parties are especially lucky, blessed really, that there has not been a proposal for a topic ban or block. You both are invaluable editors so please just take a break and come back when everyone is level-headed to fix issues on the article. No blame needs to be cast, just make the choice to end this here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, it's not merely a matter of "Wikipedia culture". It's also a matter of Wikipedia structure, which allows people to prevail in pushing content by getting rid of non-like-minded editors. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. As soon as certain users stop posting disgusting attacks against me, I will stop responding. I respect your judgement as an editor, and agree with you more often than not (far more often than not), but I have to say that this is a really poor response. The best way forward is for both of you to agree to step back for a bit, no conditions attached. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to read through all this pointlessness. It's tone was set at the outset by those claiming that this is a BLP article, It is not a BLP article; there are no BLP issues here. For how long is this article going to remain castrated by extremist pov editors who want to exclude (using entirely spurious reasons) all the content that makes its subject noteworthy? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies to the recently deceased, and can last upwards of up to 2 years from their death, particularly if there is something very controversial about it. Further, there's people beyond Seth Rich that the various statement impact who very much fall into BLP, so that's still going to be a key issue. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That, to put it curtly but correctly, is crap. Have you not looked at the MANY earlier discussions? BLP is, for this article, a spurious issue that is being used to censor the article. And this has been going on for over a year now! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sanity break

As far as I can tell, the sequence of events triggering this report looks something like this:

• A private citizen was murdered, and his death has unfortunately turned into a political football and the subject of various right-wing conspiracy theories, to the distress of his family.
• There has been an ongoing debate about whether and how to cover these partisan conspiracy theories in Murder of Seth Rich, which (contrary to uninformed opinion above) is subject to the strictures of WP:BLP, in particular WP:AVOIDVICTIM.
• Recently, Fox News published a purported "bombshell" report, the details of which were immediately amplified by right-wing media and rushed into the article by Anythingyouwant and other editors.
• The Fox News "bombshell" quickly fell apart under scrutiny and turned out to be somewhere in between deeply irresponsible journalism and an outright hoax, causing further distress to the victim's family.

I guess the take-home lesson is that we (well, some of us) need to be more circumspect when it comes to shocking or dubious claims circulated solely on partisan media, without confirmation from more reliable sources, and particularly that these claims shouldn't be rushed into BLP-sensitive articles. We should probably all know as a matter of editorial commonsense that it's a bad idea to run with these kinds of claims (which serve a partisan political end and are found only in dubious sources with poor track records of credibility), and now there's no excuse for not knowing it. The rest of the interpersonal dispute here is probably best saved for the inevitable ArbCom case (American Politics 3?), since it's unlikely to be resolved satisfactorily in this venue. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Arguably, WP:RECENTISM should be made a policy with anything involve the current American government. There is no rush to be up-to-date, and we should be waiting months if not years before trying to document a picture of something moving otherwise very quickly in the media and political circles. If RECENTISM was followed, and the recent "bombshell" held off for a few weeks until its importance (or in this case, it's faux nature) was established, we wouldn't have these behavioral problems to start. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem here was not recentism per se, though—it was poor editorial judgement and irresponsibility. In this case, you have a shocking claim made by a source of dubious credibility about an article subject notable only as the victim of someone else's actions. In that situation, all sorts of alarm bells should be going off in a responsible editor's head. The fact that those alarm bells failed to sound, and that the material was rushed into the article only to be debunked shortly thereafter, speak to the need for a higher degree of responsibility and judgement from some of our editors. Unfortunately, we can't legislate that sort of thing, although we can identify these sorts of cases as teachable moments. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly right. It was IMMEDIATELY obvious that this was BLP-violating HOAX or something close to it. I mentioned it on talk, in edit summaries, in current events portal, in requests for page protection, everywhere. Yet, Anythingyouwant and others insisted regardless on including this material. Then when it all fell apart and we had a dozen multiple sources that called it a hoax, they tried to remove any trace of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That's false. You know very well that the only material I sought to include was based on US News & World Report, and when Geogene pointed out that it had been contradicted by NBC News I tried once to include a sentence based on both NBC and USNWR presenting both sides. You just never stop with the mischaracterizations VM, do you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mastcell: I would disagree with your characterization of Anythingyouwant's edits. His additions to the article were sourced to U.S. News and World Report [1] and NBC News [2] with Fox as a supplemental source in the 1st edit. The 2nd edit refutes a claim made by both Fox and U.S News. I don't see evidence of partisanship in these edits. If there is a criticism it's that Fox and US News ran with the story too quickly. Which leads into:

@Masem: There's an ongoing discussion about a "waiting period" on EEng's talk page if you'd like to participate. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

He knew it was a BLP vio. It was pointed out to him several times. He chose to ignore these comments and decided to violate BLP anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Baloney. Provide diffs or go away. The thread that started this ANI section speaks for itself, so just cut out your spin doctoring. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

it is not a BLP violation. That's simply an untrue thing to say. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Reputable left- or right-wing media sources (no matter how partisan) may be used to support a claim (no matter how shocking or distressful) in a BLP (no matter how sensitive) about a person involved (voluntarily or involuntarily) in any matter of legitimate public interest. See NPOV and other pertinent authorities. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

no matter how shocking or distressful Umm... not really. Maybe more of a point of order, but reputable but otherwise admittedly relatively partisan sources also "get things wrong", and if the magnitude of the claim is such that "everybody" should be reporting on it if it were well founded, but "everybody" isn't, the likelihood of that goes up significantly and needs to be considered. TimothyJosephWood 10:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have blocked Anythingyouwant due to his conduct here, which constitutes a persistent, willful and egregious violation of WP:NPA. While larger behavioral concerns regarding this user have been brought up, this block is meant to be a preventative measure to address this user's repeated personal attacks in this discussion. Regards, Swarm ♠ 05:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a pathetic block User:Swarm. I've no idea how you went through everything linked above and came to this conclusion. Please justify per adminacct. Please also explain why you only blocked this user despite the numerous violations of NPA by other users. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC).

This discussion has gotten heated all around, but AYW's conduct in this discussion clearly exceeds anyone else's in terms of objective personal attacks and shows no signs of stopping. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you, because if you look at their comments here it's pretty obvious why they were blocked. Swarm ♠ 15:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I second Mr Ernie's sentiment Swarm: this was a terrible block; both sides were violating NPA but AYW did not commit any action that exceeded VM's. And honestly AYW's last comment here, while snarky, asked VM to end the discussion unless they provide diffs. How is that not a sign of stopping?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What I can see Swarm is a heated discussion and content issue that you've just jumped right in the middle of, and it looks like you've only done a cursory glance through and handed out a bad block. What you've done solves no issues and creates more bad blood. Please unblock immediately. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Slick, it was a lenient block, IMO, and not in response to their last comment or any one comment. Ernie, the behavior throughout this discussion created far more bad blood than I've ever been capable of making. Swarm ♠ 19:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It certainly was not lenient(!). A warning would have been lenient. This block seems too rash and one-sided, so I have overturned it. Thanks. El_C 10:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Swarm you still need to explain with diffs your "personal affinity" comment, or please retract it. Additionally I would ask what is a "lenient block?" Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPA prohibits attacks on personal behavior that lack evidence. It does not appear to prohibit honest attacks on personal behavior that set forth evidence (e.g., diffs or links) when those attacks are made at ANI. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well, so much for a sanity break. (I don't want to speak for Swarm, but I suspect that he meant that the duration of the block was lenient in the context of Anythingyouwant's decade-plus history of disruptive behavior around partisan political topics). MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Should I thank you for reminding everyone MastCell? For anyone who would like details, see my user page. Next time you want to poison the well, MastCell, maybe mention the last time I was blocked per my block log. Or actually see if it's possible to say something nice about me. Your pursuit of sanctions against me has been going on now for over a decade, and if each one is justified by the previous one, then I suppose things will get easier and easier for you. At first, the many AE proceedings that you and others launched were easily dismissed because they were frivolous.[109],[110],[111],[112][113] So then you got out the heavy artillery: an extremely misleading and erroneous summary that you gave to ArbCom which omitted obvious facts, and succeeded by exceeding your word limits while I was constrained by mine. So you will keep building on your big success against me all those years ago – a success that was itself built upon violating the very rules you purported to enforce. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet you still find no fault in your own deceptive, dishonest, and disruptive behaviour after all these years. Amazing. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I find much fault with your behavior back then, but there's no purpose served now by attaching derogatory adjectives to it, and I also have promised repeatedly to avoid even the appearance of changing rules to advance a position of mine, though in fact I never did that. It's all described via my user page. I am already in bad standing at Wikipedia for life, and banned from that topic area for life, because I will not bow to such a flawed Arbcom proceeding all those years ago; isn't that lifetime status enough for you guys? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2017 (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.

reverting good faith edit and WP:Hound

I'm having a dispute with User:UW Dawgs which revolves around this edit I made → [114]. I added missing NFL teams and college teams for several of the players. That is the majority of the edit in question and the only other significant edits I made were changing "Southern California" to "USC" and "Mississippi" to "Ole Miss." I am of the opinion that none of these edits are controversial and inline citations seems like overkill here, but User:UW Dawgs felt a a bit differently. He reverted my edit soon afterwards here → [115] citing WP:V. I'm fine with requesting citations, but why revert a good faith edit so quickly? Why not give me a heads up that the page would benefit if it included citations and given me an opportunity to add citations before reverting my edit? I attempted to discuss the issue on Talk:Elite 11 and User:UW Dawgs did not respond. I restored the edit and explained on the talk page that these were good faith edits and I intend on committing my time on addressing the lack of, in actuality, the complete absence of citations on this page, which puzzles(actually not puzzled at all) me as to why he has singled out my edit and not any of the other unsourced edits. I mean he should blank the entire page since there isn't a single inline citation on the entire page. Not until I restored my edit here →[116], did he magically appear only an hour later and once again reverted my edit→[117], while also not addressing any of the questions that I ask him on the talk page and simply cites WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Does he dispute or find any part of that edit objectionable in any way? Why does he feel the need to go the wholesale revert route instead of giving me an opportunity to add citations?

This feels like WP:Hound. This edit was my first edit since being unblocked. I had been indefinitely blocked for using multiple accounts and an edit warring incident in which User:UW Dawgs was involved in and he seems to still be holding some weird grudge against me. He has falsely accused several users of being my sockpuppets→[118] and then even commented on my standard offer unblock request and made misleading comments→[119], which I addressed on my talk page→[120]. Over six months since my indefinite block and he's still on my case. Then he quickly reverts my first edit since being unblocked→[121]. It seems clear to me he has some weird obsession/grudge against me. I would love to believe this dispute is about the lack of citations, but I believe this is nothing but provocation on the part of User:UW Dawgs. If this were about the citations, he wouldn't have just reverted my edit without giving me an opportunity to add citations, especially for the edit in question that involves completely uncontroversial content. If the edit in question involved an extraordinary claim or was controversial in any way, then sure, I'd understand reverting it, but the edit in question is not controversial at all. I'd like to request an admin to look over this behavior and ask User:UW Dawgs to get off my back, allow me to restore my good faith edit→[122] and give me adequate time to add citations. Edday1051 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of User:Smallbones

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.

---

Smallbones (talk · contribs) is biased towards FXCM which causes users edits on this topic to be disruptive bordering on vandalism. This is compounded by users disregard for other editors. Instead of discussing concerns on the talk page, user brings up paid editing to scare away editors that disagree with contentious edits. As I understand being an inactive editor and Smallbones (talk · contribs) being an established one, such serious accusations require strong proof. I took time to gather and cataloged edits that show alleged misconduct. While my renewed interest in editing Wikipedia started with the bias visible on the FXCM article, I did not branch out to others yet. I have, however, noticed similar behavior in users recent edits. I believe user should be investigated for bias towards forex industry as a whole. It is important to note that user was previously warned [123], topic banned [124] and blocked [125] for similar editing conduct.

The user already admitted to being biased against FXCM: "I sympathize with your viewpoint at FXCM" [126] when addressing this contribution [127]. The bias can be seen in a weird move of description of what the company does behind recent controversy [128].

User does not communicate with other editors. There are many threads on the talk page waiting for this users reply [129] and attempts to get users attention with their user-talk page were ignored: [130]. Looking at other entries on users talk page, one can see this disregard for other editors is not limited to FXCM page [131][132][133].

Instead of answering concerns, user opened a WP:COIN case for me including two easy to disprove lies. [134] User is trying to scare another editor away from the same page [135]

User repeatedly uses judgmental language in the lede [136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143]. The wording changes, but it could be considered edit warring.

User removed maintenance templates without any discussion or giving a reason [144]

User removes relevant information with no explanation. Some of these removals are sneakily hidden when adding other information.

"Business model" section [145][146],

homepage URL from info-box [147],

removal from "Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange" category [148],

company logo from the info-box [149][150][151][152][153] this happened enough times to be considered edit warring.

removal from "List of foreign exchange companies" [154],

industry from info-box [155][156]

"Operations" section [157][158]

overseas expansion and initial offering of CFDs from history section [159]

"Business model" section [160][161]

Instead, user adds irrelevant information.

overly detailed information about a different company Refco [162][163]

entry on overall forex market criticism [164] this edit also doubled information that was already in the article.

User adds questionable information with no support of the sources.

claim that company closed down [165][166],

claim that company moved out of their NY office [167][168][169][170][171]

User misrepresents sources by changing wording to mean something else:

claim that clients lost $225 million while sources say the company was at a loss. [172],

add "in" between "FXCM Australia" makes it sound like FXCM ceased servicing Australian clients[173][174][175][176].

User alluded that is the case on the talk page [177]

User is engaging in similar behavior on pages not related to FXCM

removal of homepage from the info-box because it "looks like advertising" [178],

user removed sourced information with a weird reason "toaster ovens also?" [179],

user misrepresented source "closed down their UK operations, perhaps temporarily" [180] - the source article does not suggest permanent closing "had to temporarily suspend trading in the UK until all of the changes are complete"WP [181]

user is trying to scare away another editor with accusations of paid editing [182]

Gouyoku (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This WP:WALLOFTEXT appears to be by User:Gouyuku. Have they read the boomerang essay? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to respond to this the way it is formatted. If it looks like he is repeating the same diffs for multiple complaints, it is because he is.

Gouyoku (talk · contribs) looks like a classic sleeper/SPA editor (just 3 edits before Aug. 2015, with the rest of his edits (26) to FXCM and related pages this month. I did ask him about this - you gotta admit that looks like a paid editor - and I was very straightforward about it, but did not accuse him of being a paid editor - just made a direct question. His answer struck me as being improbable, paraphrasing he "just happened to run into this article and see that I was persecuting the article subject." Per the usual situation, his knowledge of the rules is highly advanced for someone who only made 3 edits before April.

I'm also hesitant to respond directly to his complaints about me. They are so ill formed, that to answer them might just give them credibility. I will say that he searched my disciplinary record from my 11.5 years on Wikipedia very well, finding 3 incidents. If he searches even harder he should be able to find another incident where I was banned from a talk page for 24 hours.

It's probably best just to outline the situation with FXCM and let editors judge how to best handle such a situation. FXCM was a retail foreign exchange broker in the US officially since 1999, but the business really only got off the ground about 2005 when speculative online trading came into vogue. It was a very controversial industry then and is now. About 2005 the regulator, the CFTC issued warnings about the industry and tried to get the most legit firms to register, closing down the rest. FXCM's owner CEO made a hilarious statement to a Wall Street Journal reporter at that time that only about 15% of its customers made money (i.e. 85% of the punters lose money)

Long story short, FXCM ran into regulatory/legal problems at every turn, but became the #1 firm in the industry. Until February 6, 2017 when they admitted in a consent decree that they had been lying to their customers for 8 years about how the trading was actually handled. They were kicked out of the US, aren't allowed to even apply to come back ever, and a 3rd level - they have to be reregistered with an industry self-regulatory group before they can even think about doing anything with the CFTC. They haven't issued any statements since except a couple of required SEC forms. There's no way to officially say what's going on with them other than they are being sued by their shareholders, by their customers, and the debtholders are more-or-less running the overseas business. But it was impossible to leave the article alone which said approx. "FXCM is a leading forex broker in the US." It was basically an ad for them.

It's too late. More tomorrow. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, I realize you are a big advocate against paid editing, but I wish you wouldn't yourself bring it up in your own editing disputes, which you did by asking on their talk page and posting at COI/N. You open yourself up to accusations that you are using such tactics to chill opposition to your editing position. Be in an editing dispute, that's cool, we all do that, accuse others of being a paid editor, well, swell, but when you do both in the same discussion, I don't like it as much. The difference between questioning and accusation, when you have been as active as you have been against paid editing, is a bit theoretical. Leave it for matters in which you are not involved, so you cannot be accused of self-interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) I have indeed forgotten to sign my entry, oops. I have read many "meta" pages of Wikipedia over the last month but not the ones you have pointed out, thank you. Regarding WP:WALLOFTEXT: I understand the entry is long, but it is divided into two parts. First paragraph explains my reasoning and I believe is short enough. The rest of the entry is a list of supporting diffs - as I have mentioned, serious accusations require serious evidence. I admit it may not be easy on the eyes. Can you give me some pointers on how should such a list be included? Regarding WP:BOOMERANG: With the exception of three revents, all my contributions were fixing specific inaccuracy in the article, were small to make sure each can be reviewed independently, were explained in the edit summary and were not contested. I do not believe administrators will find my conduct unacceptable, but if they do I am willing to change.

@Smallbones (talk · contribs) To make it easier for you, please respond only to the first paragraph. In the second paragraph I am repeating the same diffs multiple times, because you include many changes in the same diffs, often mixing additions and deletions. I believe you have misrepresented my answer here. At first I have seen the article itself to be biased but did not attribute it to you. I have tried to WP:AGF towards you until you have opened the WP:COIN case. If my knowledge of the rules seem advanced it is because I spent time to familiarize myself with them. Reading is easy and I had almost a month to do so. As for your outline of the situation with FXCM - it is, once again, one sided and contains inaccuracies. I believe this discussion would fit better in a WP:DRN, but if administrators wish I will present my view of the issue. Let me just ask this: if it was "impossible to leave the article alone", was it also impossible not to make the article claim the company shut down and impossible not to remove almost all descriptions on how the company operates ? People come to Wikipedia to learn about a topic as a whole, not to follow latest controversy. Gouyoku (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gouyoku:, I wouldn't tell users to only read a certain section of something. That can sometimes lead to disputes. —JJBers 13:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:, I am sorry if it looks this way, but I am not asking anyone not to read the whole report. I am asking for an answer to the first paragraph, as the rest of the report is only a list of contentious edits that supports the first paragraph. User Smallbones is of course free to address my assertions on the edits if they disagree with them.Gouyoku (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll answer Gouyoku's questions in the first paragraph briefly: My record of discipline on Wikipedia.

First I'll mention that I've made 42,295 edits over 11.5 years on Wikipedia and been disciplined just 4 times AFAIK. I've also uploaded almost 8,000 photos to Commons, about 3,000 being my own photos. I do not shrink away from controversy, but stand my ground when I know I'm right. I know the rules here and if somebody comes after me, I give as good as I get. The 3 incidents mentioned by Goukoku:

• Arbcom decision 2015 - a now long gone disruptive editor reverted me and several other editors about 37 times at User talk:Jimbo Wales over the course of a few days. I reverted him about 20 times. He was inserting a message from a long banned editor. The question before arbcom was whether our policy that says any banned editor can be reverted by any other editor without regard to WP:3RR. Jimbo pretty much backed me up on this. Arbcom did not rule on the 3RR exemption. I got a warning, and I can see why arbcom would do that if they didn't want to address the key issue. The other guy eventually got banned if I remember correctly, but it took awhile.
• Back in 2007 (10 years ago) I was banned from editing 2 articles related to RP. (I think I'm still banned from mentioning him on talk pages) Perhaps I didn't know the rules well enough, but the way I look at it is that the case would never be decided that way now. I've followed that ban religiously, except I was once warned for fixing a circular redirect on the article. An arb just asked a few weeks ago if I'd like to get that ban off the books, essentially automatically. No I don't want that.
• Last summer during the election I made very few edits to political articles, but in one case I reverted an edit that deleted a perfectly fine, documented paragraph. I thought this was fixing a violation of of an arbcom order, but it turned out we each had to get consensus for each of our edits. We were both blocked for 12 hours, but I didn't know this until 15 hours later (it was a long weekend). I figured I'd let it slide.
• The case that Gokuyou didn't ask about is that I got banned from a talk page for 24 hours for excessive capitalization. Admins will know what this means. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I to understand you are not disputing being biased against FXCM, making disruptive edits and disregarding other editors? I commend you on your great record, but please consider a possibility that your standards slipped in this case. Gouyoku (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You asked about paragraph 1 and essentially said that you wouldn't ask more questions. The point of paragraph one seems to be an accusation that I am a long-term abuser of paid editors. The record does not bear that out. Am I biased against FXCM? No - thats all I'm going to answer from you. If an admin wants to put together a couple of questions, I'll gladly answer those, but please check their factual basis first. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not employ straw man arguments. The point of the first paragraph was your bias, disruptive edits, disregard towards other editors and using paid editing accusations as a weapon in disputes. Your refusal to acknowledge issues I brought up here is a great example of this disregard. Gouyoku (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Gouyuku - I haven't read the details of this case, but this appears to involve reserve or sleeper paid editing for a company that has had recent legal problems in the United States, and I hardly care about the nits on the long-time editing record of User:Smallbones, who is a reputable editor who is usually right. I would advise User:Gouyuku not to press the community's patience by posting walls of text and by claiming ignorance of some policies and guidelines. I am every bit as hostile to paid editing as User:Smallbones, and many other long-time editors also are. Do not expect a friendly welcome when you complain about unfriendliness to paid editors on behalf of questionable companies. It isn't a matter of whether Smallbones' standards slipped in this case, but whether you have standards. You may come to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I will recuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor. Gouyoku (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, FXCM again. The FXCM article is rather negative, and that's justified. See the CFTC press release "CFTC Orders Forex Capital Markets, LLC (FXCM), Its Parent Company, FXCM Holdings, LLC and FXCM’s Founding Partners, Dror Niv and William Ahdout, to Pay a $7 Million Penalty for FXCM’s Defrauding of Retail Forex Customers. FXCM, Niv, and Ahdout are Prohibited from Registering with the CFTC, Acting in Exempt Capacities or Acting as Principals, Agents, Officers or Employees of Registrants. [183] This is a company barred from operating in the United States because of illegal activity. The negative info is quite well cited - Bloomberg, Forbes, Reuters, the New York Times, and various regulatory agencies. As for being removed from the listing of NYSE stocks, that's because FXCM was delisted from the NYSE and moved to the NASDAQ. They're about to be delisted from NASDAQ.[184] This isn't a Wikipedia problem; the company is in very serious trouble and the article reflects that reality. John Nagle (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but I do not dispute here that the article is negative. The point here is that changes introduced by the user in question are disruptive to Wikipedia. There is representing facts accurately in an encyclopedic fashion, and there's judgmental language, removal of relevant sourced information, addition of questionable unsourced information and misrepresenting sources. User does the latter due to their admitted bias. Additionally, they disregard other users and use paid editing accusations to scare them away. Gouyoku ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest, if you can develop a pattern of conduct of using paid editing accusations (including the asking of "Are you a paid editor?", filings at noticeboards, and the like) to chill discussion, not simply a single occurrence, that you request arbitration. Because I don't see much happening here. That being said, there is at least some movement taking place on the article talk page, so it may be better to settle for that for now. Your call.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As someone who works WP:COIN issues, a bit of background. Edits in the forex area tend to be viewed skeptically at WP:COIN. The binary option industry, shut down in many countries for being a scam, is moving into the forex area. Wikipedia has a long history of severe COI editing problems in the binary option area. See [185], from 2014. There's been intermittent trouble on Wikipedia from that business sector since. There are some similarities between FXCM's activities and those of certain binary option companies. Hence the pushback against anything that resembles a whitewashing attempt. Gouyoku has, perhaps inadvertently, started their Wikipedia editing career in a difficult area. At the moment, the parties are arguing on Talk but not changing the article, so there's not much need for admin action. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that the user have started responding on the talk page. In this regard I consider this whole ordeal a success. If I understand correctly, as an administrator you looked over the diffs I have provided and found nothing wrong with them - is that correct? Also, how many paid editing accusations against editors that disagree with the user would be enough to establish a pattern? Thank you. Gouyoku (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:You may have missed the question as I have forgotten to ping you. I think we are almost done here but would like some closure. I would very much appreciate if you answered the two questions. Thank you. Gouyoku (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

My view of the matter is that given Smallbones' advocacy against paid editing, there was a post they made on Jimbo's talk page some months ago where they gave themselves much credit for having a virtual ban on compensation inserted into the terms of use, I think it is very unseemly for them to bring up paid editing in personal editing disputes. You could easily have been blocked by one of their allies, and it looks to me like there was intent that you be blocked or at the very least scared off. When the alleged witches the local witch sniffer brings in are having a spite fence dispute with the witch sniffer, at the very least there is eyebrow raising. I have not passed on their contributions in an adminly capacity, since I generally don't get involved in disciplinary issues. On pattern, I am not passing on it adminly, but I am minded of Auric Goldfinger's adage that once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. That being said, I am glad that editors here helped break the ice of the dispute and people are talking.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Things seem to be moving along at Talk, and the article currently seems to reflect both FXCM's history and current problems. There were a few whitewash-type edits, one being [186] by Lenticularphoto (talk · contribs). But that problem seems to have been resolved. I'd suggest closing this out. (I'm not an admin; I work WP:COIN issues. Admins stop users doing COI, WP:COIN fixes the articles. Editing and using admin tools for the same article is considered bad form, so it takes both. Right now, nobody seems to need to be blocked, and little article repair is needed.) (Edit: Sorry, forgot to sign. My bad. John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC))

Who are you? Sorry, but I find it almost impossible to dig out the author + timestamp from the history for an unsigned comment on this fast-moving page. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC).

That was a comment by Nagle (talk · contribs) [187]. I am currently writing a response to Wehwalt (talk · contribs). Gouyoku (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:From what I understand now, no admins reviewed the diffs I have brought up. You mentioned three paid editing accusations, I can show four: [188][189][190][191]. In light of this, can you please recommend how can I get attention of an admin to look over the diffs? I believe paid editing accusations are not the only problem here. Gouyoku (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt you can. Admins are not supposed to be law enforcement, instead we put out the fire, and right now there is no fire as the talk page logjam has broken, and thus the project is being advanced. If there is a further controversial accusation than again history is something to be looked at either by an admin or by the Arbitration Committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:I guess all that is left for me is to continue correcting factual errors in the article until I get banned on the grounds of Kafkaesque accusations of paid editing. It's sad to see resistance to blatant character assassination by removal of encyclopedic content and misrepresentation of facts being called "whitewashing". Thank you for your time. Gouyoku (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Could somebody close this? It's been open for 2 weeks and I haven't seen anything that even approaches a credible accusation that I've broken any rules. There has been some name-calling, but I don't see the need to respond to it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:57, 24 May 2017 (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.

Hanoi vandal 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.

---

Three months ago, the Hanoi vandal was rangeblocked by EdJohnston, the range being 49.144.0.0/16. (Archived case.) As can be seen at the very active IP list at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi Vandal, the same range needs another block, to make the problem more manageable. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A /16 is a rather wide range block. It looks like 49.144.32.0/19 and 49.144.224.0/20 will take care of it. I'll do a range block on each of them for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree - These sets of rangeblocks are tighter and much better. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:04, 23 May 2017 (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.

Disruption from 107.77.23*

• Franklin (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Little Bear (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over on the above-linked articles I noticed IP addresses from 107.77.23* range have been repeatedly vandalizing the pages by blanking them and redirecting them. Upon looking at contribs from the range since the beginning of the year (link), I see the abuse is much wider in scope.

The IPs appear to come from the New York City area and have included IPs outside of this range (e.g., Special:Contributions/96.235.174.222 and Special:Contributions/67.248.187.171)

They seem to target animation pages in general (e.g., [192], [193], [194], [195]). They also seem to have a beef with RickinBaltimore (e.g., [196], [197], [198], [199]).

I did not see this IP range in the archives at SPI so thought this would be the best venue. Can admin look at the range and consider options such as a rangeblock? Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Zzuuzz about this prior, and there appears to be too much collateral damage to justify a range block. However, I would welcome a bigger look into this (as personally it's annoying to have my talk page protected off and on constantly). RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Okay, maybe I'll start a list at User:EvergreenFir/socks. Would you mind blocking the most recent one though (Special:Contributions/107.77.236.7)? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Side note, this appears to have been going on for at least a year (see Special:Contributions/107.77.232.116) and may be related to a known sock/troll Incorrigible Troll (see edits by Special:Contributions/107.77.236.138). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

(pinged) I don't know about that. To be precise, one of the ranges is 107.77.232.0/21, it's been going on for several years, and I've always had the location down as Georgia (US). We have several edit filters in place capable of dealing with this user; filter 855 is the latest and most relevant (@RickinBaltimore:). There's also a relevant thread on my talk page. I was made aware of some defined good-faith collateral on the 107 range - my most recent words to a relevant user are that I would "try my best not to block it in a hurry". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I blocked 107.77.232.0/24 and 107.77.236.0/24 for 36 hours for disruptive editing. I think these ranges are the most appropriate. If I missed something or if any administrator disagrees, please feel free to change or remove either or both blocks. Just respond below and let me know so I can see what the issue is ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Wiktbdhb

In the article List of awards and nominations received by Janet Jackson she/he keeps posting wrong information, removing the official sources of total of awards and posting a false number. I tried a conversation in his talk page, he/she posted in mine, but ignored the point and still editing. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for three days. Wiktbdhb and Cornerstonepicker, I suggest you discuss this difference on the talk page of the article, allowing others to help reach a consensus as to how to resolve this issue. Bencherlite^Talk 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bencherlite:. Ok, he even inflated the number of awards in his last edit. I'll use the article's talk page. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Bencherlite In the article List of awards and nominations received by Janet Jackson she/he keeps posting wrong information, removing the official sources and updated information relating to total awards

Billboard confirms that Janet Jackson won six Billboard awards in 1986 here: http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7370513/janet-jackson-50-accomplishments-birthday Which contradicts the previous articles by Billboard crediting Jackson with only 10 wins (Those ten awards include eight wins in 1990, meaning the six wins in 1986 are not accounted for). More proof of this is here, a scanned copy of an ad taken out by A&M records congratulating Jackson on SIX wins in 1986. http://imgur.com/jZbdasZ

People.com (a trusted source) has updated information crediting Janet Jackson with 33 total Billboard Music Award Wins. This article was released in 2017 AFTER the Billboard articles. http://people.com/music/billboard-music-awards-2017-performers-presenters-hosts/

My edit simply reflect this updated information, and I have explained this to Cornerstonepicker who continues to edit the content regardless.

User:Calcoform

This user, who is under sock puppet investigation as a sock of a similarly minded user called User:Hilsea, has previously been blocked for POV editing, personal attacks and forum soapboxing on a pro-Muslim agenda, with particularly nasty edits on the subject of New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, and is at it again. If the sock investigation isn't happening, can we discuss a topic ban.

Further examples of evidence of this user's behaviour can be found in his contributions, I'm not going to spell it all out again Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a comment to the SPI case you linked here. In short, I don't see any subtle, grammatical, or other behaviors that unambiguously link Hilsea and Calcoform to one another for me to justify action. If there are specific diffs you can provide that do, please provide them - I'd like to take a look. A topic ban can certainly be discussed here should it be warranted, but as of this writing I don't have enough evidence from this report nor the SPI report to take action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 Huwara shooting, User:ThePagesWriter, and WP:ARBPIA3#500/30

I'm posting this here because frankly, I don't know where else it should be posted. If this is the wrong place, please do not simply close this discussion, but instead direct me to the appropriate place to discuss this issue.

• 2017 Huwara shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ThePagesWriter (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

2017 Huwara shooting, an article about the shooting on the West Bank of Palestinians by an Israeli, was created by ThePagesWriter on May 18. On April 14, the editor created 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing, about the stabbing of Israelis and others by a Palestinian. However, the editor has made only 14 edits and under the terms of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, is "prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The first article survived an AfD discussion because there was no consensus to delete. The new article is currently at AfD. I believe, however, that the situation should be treated as analogous to a G5 speedy deletion. I assert that the article need not be considered on its merits but should be deleted because it never should had been created by this editor. Had this editor tried to edit an existing article to add the content, she/he might have found it ECP-protected or her/his edits are likely to have been reverted because of the editor's ineligibility to contribute to the topic area.

Please close this gaping hole in enforcement before new editors start driving armored vehicles through it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment--The remedies already include --

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

.Are you wishing some change to the language to prevent such creation at it's entirety?Winged Blades ^Godric 06:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment--And I think, at the least, WP:AN is a better place .Winged Blades ^Godric 06:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades already mentioned the relevant part of the remedies. If you think the remedies should be changed, you should request it at WP:ARCA. Regards SoWhy 07:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that new users are familiar with the provisions of arbitration rulings? I've been here for eleven years, and I wasn't aware that ARBPIA prohibited page creation by non-ExC editors. Let me be blunt: unless the editor's a sock, there's no way that he could have known about this. Unless you can present solid evidence that that's the case, there's no reason for any action against this editor. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Malik is right here. If we permit editors who are not allowed to edit in the I/P subject area to create new articles, we will inevitably see a spate of highly-POV new articles, content forks, BLP violations and other offences against the integrity of Wikipedia and the intention of the arbitration rulings. All editors working on these articles, regardless of their own POV, recognise and welcome the positive contribution that the 500/30 ruling has made to both the quality of articles and the general editing atmosphere. Enabling this loophole will create a time and energy sink for conscientious editors, who will need to spend more time playing whack-a-mole with problem editors and unacceptable articles. And, since these new articles will not be on anyone's Watchlist, it will be harder to spot them and easier to use them to subvert the arbitration provisions. If an editor is not permitted to edit in this subject area, then any new articles they create in the area should definitely be speedily deleted; an extended-confirmed editor could themselves recreate the article if appropriate. RolandR (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I was certainly not aware of this rule until I started the AfD; and no way I knew about it when I created my first Mideast-related article (Bernard Haykel) article a few months after I began editing, or my second (Death of Adele Biton) (after having a rock thrown through my windshield (in New Zealand,) or when I created my third (Death of Binyamin Meisner). The Benjamin Meisner AfD was my WP baptism by fire. It was probably the moment I met User:Malik Shabazz, who voted ot delete[200]. I still don't understand most of the rules involved in editing, but I do take User:Nyttend's point. The complexity of the rules, and the way a new user can feel that rules are a weapon used by editors who have a different perspective (for example, lacking the perspective that comes from having been in the front seat of a car when a rock crashes into the windshield) to drive new editors off the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Thank you, Winged Blades of Godric. I wasn't aware that the question of what to do about new articles created by ineligible editors had been addressed.
2. No, Nyttend, I'm not suggesting new editors are familar with ArbCom rulings, nor was I asking for action against the editor. (Looking at my message, I should have made it clearer that I was looking for something analogous to a G5 speedy deletion and not to punish anybody. Oh wait, I did, and anyway, everybody knows that blocks are always preventative and never punitive.™) But when an ineligible editor creates a second new article in the conflict area, after the first was nominated for deletion and ARBPIA3 was raised at the AfD discussion, I think it's time to take some action—no, not against the editor with 14 edits, but against the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, thank you for the clarification; if you raise such a discussion in the future, please say explicitly that you're not seeking sanctions against the editor. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Article deleted: "Creation in violation of WP:ARBPIA3 and no substantial content edits by ECP-confirmed editors" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

NFCC edit warring

I have asked for 3rd opinions on the following articles: Allen Road, Marilyn Bell and Conn Smythe. The editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz continues to remove non-free images without waiting for a third opinion. Any assistance or advice on how to proceed is appreciated. The images have been in place on the articles for sometime, and one is a good article. Alaney2k (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alaney2k - Generally, we should avoid adding non-free content to articles on Wikipedia when possible, which is the underlying principal that this concern is based off of. The policy here does state that all ten of the criteria listed must be met in order to include any non-free content within an article. I also believe that they should be kept off of articles when in dispute and added only when consensus is reached that doing so is justified. If any other administrators or editors experienced with image/content copyrights have things to add, or if I stated something incorrect, please feel free to correct me. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, I see consistent back-and-fourth reverting across all three articles and over the last few days. I've fully protected all three articles for two days, or until an agreement is met on the respective article's talk page. Please discuss; don't edit war - even if you think "you're right". ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I would have figured to keep them on would be best for the process. I have also updated the captions to try to make the relevance clear. Alaney2k (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for protecting them. I will remember this (leaving them off) in the future. Alaney2k (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Alaney2k - No problem. Generally, we always love keeping content rather than removing it (of course) - you'll hear that a lot in deletion discussions. However, in cases of things that involve copyrights, non-free content, potential BLP violations, and the like - we have to err on the side of caution in order to make sure that we're following the relevant policies and guidelines before we include such content - they're important policies to check and follow! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, The protected versions all have the non-free content in it. Based on your comments above shouldn't it be removed from the articles while protected? ~ GB fan 15:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

One reason I was putting them back in was because I got the notices from the bot that the images would be deleted within 7 days. No guarantee a 3rd opinion would come in that time. Catch-22? Alaney2k (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A deletion is not permanent. If it can be shown to be a valid use of the image it can be restored. That is not a reason for the file to remain in the article. ~ GB fan 15:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

GB fan - Good call. My initial thought was to leave the articles alone per WP:WRONGVERSION, but in this case removing would be the right thing to do.  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

BUT how would someone see it if it is deleted? The diffs are there, but the image gets wiped and doesn't show up in old diffs. How can one judge? Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Alaney2k - I wasn't talking about deleting the images, just removing them from the articles while the discussions are underway. To answer your question though: If an image is deleted, it will not render on old revisions/diffs of articles or pages - even on revisions where the image is present. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I can give you a third opinion. In all three cases the image fails WP:NFCC#8. They are all just a scan of a newspaper page. None of them help me understand the article. In all three cases you accurately described the use of the image in the non free rationale you wrote, they are used to illustrate the article. They are not used to help the reader better understand the content of the article. ~ GB fan 16:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Have you judged those before? Also, would you know of any examples of a front-page newspaper image that is okay? Is it ever? I would like to not repeat my mistake. I mean, these have been in place for years, and one was passed for good article. And, thirdly, (sorry) could you put your comments on the talk page for the articles? Alaney2k (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally, non-free newspaper images only appropriate if 1) they are the identifying image for that specific work in something like an infobox for that newspaper or 2) the specific newspaper story itself (not the story it is reporting on) is the subject of the discussion, such as Dewey Defeats Truman, or the "Press Reaction" section of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (where there was critical discussion of how the various UK papers treated the judges as scum via their headlines). --MASEM (t) 16:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so if I had created "Marilyn Bell Lake Ontario Swim" article, "Ontario Government Cancels Spadina" article and a "Conn Smythe and the Conscription Crisis" article, these might have been ok? (The article still has to be noteworthy/notable and not just a fork, I assume. "Regular article stuff") Alaney2k (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I am sure there are times they are appropriate. The one that sprang to my mind when I first read your question was Dewey Defeats Truman. I am not inclined to add any comments on any article talk page about this. ~ GB fan 17:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As only an administrative note, while 3RR exemptions are allowed for images that fail NFCC, these have to be clear failures, which I don't think the images in question clearly are. The NFCC failures that are exempt from 3RR edit warring are those like NFCC#2 (commercial images), or images that lack any proper rational and licensing, or clear copyright-scrubbed images. Anything else likely needs discussion either on talk pages, tagged for deletion after 7 days, or taken to FFD. In this case, I don't think any of these images are clear failures, though I do think they fail NFCC personally, so edit warring to remove this is inappropriate behavior. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit warring to remove them and the edit warring to add them back is inappropriate behavior. Both sides are over 3RR on all three articles. The full protection was the right call in this case. ~ GB fan 16:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I should have been clear. Removal or addition is still subject to 3RR. If they had been long-standing in the article, and HW removed them, Alaney2k could have reverted that and restored them under BRD, but that the needed the "Discussion" part which didn't happen before edit warring continued. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Alaney2k has since created copies of all three articles, with the non-free images, in his own userspace; I have removed all of the images per WP:NFCC#9. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I feel a bit stalked. :-) I thought I could use them during preparation of new articles. Is that not an exception as said so previously? I think at least two out of three could be stand-alone articles. As the current articles do not go into the topics in depth. Alaney2k (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You can, but the non-free images need to be commented out whilst they're in userspace. I don't see that any of those articles are anything more than a fork of the existing articles anyway, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I recall a long time ago a time when I started editing an article in main space. It was pushed for speedy deletion within an hour because some editor had judged it not notable. I had not had time to put all of the content I wanted into it. I was researching. So, I generally start an article in my own space now. I never expected the same treatment in my own space. Really, give me a bit of time to get my source books out of the library! Look at my first post. I was asking for assistance and advice. Please assume some good-faith. Alaney2k (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No-one is going to push for deletion of anything in your userspace; you have as long as you want to improve them. I was merely stating an opinion on the articles as they stand. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusion.Clarification is requested.

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 reverted an IP editor who eviscerated a whole section of this page. Per ARBPIA, I was appropriately reverting an abusive intrusion

The text I restored had the words:'Israel has been steadily demolishing homes of Palestinians claiming a variety of rationales.’ This restoration does not count as a revert.

• User:Debresser 14:38, 21 May 2017‎ quickly intervened to modify the text I restored, rewriting

'Israel has demolished homes of Palestinians claiming a variety of rationales’.

I could this as revert 1.

The original text (Amira Hass 'Red Cross Stops Providing Emergency Tents to Palestinians in Jordan Valley,' Haaretz 6 February 2014) does not use the past tense ‘has demolished’ or demolished with a date attached. It uses the present tense: that the number of demolitions in the Jordan Valley 'is increasing over a 2 year period or that Israel 'has stepped up' demolitions. Therefore Debresser's edit distorted the general thrust of the source by changing an increase in home demolitions over a two year period, into a fact of the past (has demolished).

Since Debresser modified the text I restored from IP abuse, that counts as a revert.

• Though his edit sunk the implication clearly set forth in the source (that Israeli demolitions are not a pasrt reality but ongoing and increasing), I did not modify it. I added fresh text preceding it to clarify that this process was, contrary to the misimpression Debresser made, continuous over time since 1967, providing a new source.

• 21 May 2017 Debresser reverted me, making his intervention the second modification of that page in one day.

• I alerted Debresser on his talk page that he had made two reverts and asked him to restore the removed text, while giving three arguments pointing out serious problems in the ostensible reasons given for the revert in his edit summary. He said he would think about it, but did not reply, either there or on the talk page to my serious notes on the total inadequacy and inaccuracy (no policy base) motivating the revert.
• I waited two days. Since Debresser did not reply on his talk page or on the Jordan Valley (Middle East) talk page to the substance of my 3 objections, I restored the text.

Debresser quickly reverted this too and posted a complaint on my page threatening AE action.

I cannot see where I broke the IR rule. I think he broke it. But if he is correct, then it means in practice that the AE ruling permits any editor to undo any other editor’s work on an IP page, and, if they are just 2 editors, insist that the removed content cannot be restored without his consensus. In practical terms, consensus would mean ‘without the permission, or arrangements being made, with the reverting editor.’ This means the reverter is omnipotent. It means, in practice that an editor of long standing like myself, cannot add anything to an IP page without having it subject to a revert challenge that sinks it by saying I cannot restore it, or even edit anything, without second or third party consensus. Is this what the ARBPIA ruling is now allowing?

The ruling says:'editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit.' I set forth three objections to the irrational edit summary Debresser used to make his revert and he refused over 2 days to reply to any or each point as one can observe here. I took this as a refusal to engage in the consensus-gaining process.

Could administrators sort out this ambiguity by clarifying this please.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I warned Nishidani because of another issue. He added some infromation,[201], which I then removed,[202], and he restored[203] in violation of WP:ARBPIA3. He specifically admitted in he edit summary: "Restoring, as per remarks on Debresser's page, a text improperly removed on grounds that have no policy justification." I left him a clear explanation and warning on his talkpage,[204] so I fail to see why he is trying to pretend here the issue is any other. This is not his first encounter with WP:ARBPIA3, and he knows well enough that a restoring a contested edit is explicitly prohibited in the WP:ARBPIA area without prior establishing consensus on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If you must bold my remarks:'"Restoring, as per remarks on Debresser's page. I.e. I gave 3 precise reasons on your talk page, and you said you'd examine them, and then fell silent. I.e. you didn't reply there to my attempts to make you reason on the dispute. Consensus cannot be gained by reverting and then refusing to respond to questions or comments. So I fetl entitled after 2 days of silence to re-add that material, since you refused to enter the consensus cycle.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You never opened a talkpage discussion, as you are supposed to per WP:ARBPIA3, so I had a reasonable expectation that you agreed with my arguments as I explained them in the edit summary. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As for his accusation as though I violated anything here. Nishidani's claim that "Since Debresser modified the text I restored from IP abuse, that counts as a revert" is so obviously untrue, that I can not accept that an experienced editor like Nishidani, who is active here over 10 years, makes this assertion in good faith. I think I scared the wits out of him when I pointed out on his talkpage that he had violated WP:ARBPIA3, in which area he has been warned several times on WP:AE already, so he decided to tried and whitewash his knowing violation with an attempt to make me look bad, which should WP:BOOMERANG on him. I recommend a strong reprimand or a straightforward extended block for his WP:ARBPIA3 violation. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2017 (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.

reverting good faith edit and WP:Hound

I'm having a dispute with User:UW Dawgs which revolves around this edit I made → [205]. I added missing NFL teams and college teams for several of the players. That is the majority of the edit in question and the only other significant edits I made were changing "Southern California" to "USC" and "Mississippi" to "Ole Miss." I am of the opinion that none of these edits are controversial and inline citations seems like overkill here, but User:UW Dawgs felt a a bit differently. He reverted my edit soon afterwards here → [206] citing WP:V. I'm fine with requesting citations, but why revert a good faith edit so quickly? Why not give me a heads up that the page would benefit if it included citations and given me an opportunity to add citations before reverting my edit? I attempted to discuss the issue on Talk:Elite 11 and User:UW Dawgs did not respond. I restored the edit and explained on the talk page that these were good faith edits and I intend on committing my time on addressing the lack of, in actuality, the complete absence of citations on this page, which puzzles(actually not puzzled at all) me as to why he has singled out my edit and not any of the other unsourced edits. I mean he should blank the entire page since there isn't a single inline citation on the entire page. Not until I restored my edit here →[207], did he magically appear only an hour later and once again reverted my edit→[208], while also not addressing any of the questions that I ask him on the talk page and simply cites WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Does he dispute or find any part of that edit objectionable in any way? Why does he feel the need to go the wholesale revert route instead of giving me an opportunity to add citations?

This feels like WP:Hound. This edit was my first edit since being unblocked. I had been indefinitely blocked for using multiple accounts and an edit warring incident in which User:UW Dawgs was involved in and he seems to still be holding some weird grudge against me. He has falsely accused several users of being my sockpuppets→[209] and then even commented on my standard offer unblock request and made misleading comments→[210], which I addressed on my talk page→[211]. Over six months since my indefinite block and he's still on my case. Then he quickly reverts my first edit since being unblocked→[212]. It seems clear to me he has some weird obsession/grudge against me. I would love to believe this dispute is about the lack of citations, but I believe this is nothing but provocation on the part of User:UW Dawgs. If this were about the citations, he wouldn't have just reverted my edit without giving me an opportunity to add citations, especially for the edit in question that involves completely uncontroversial content. If the edit in question involved an extraordinary claim or was controversial in any way, then sure, I'd understand reverting it, but the edit in question is not controversial at all. I'd like to request an admin to look over this behavior and ask User:UW Dawgs to get off my back, allow me to restore my good faith edit→[213] and give me adequate time to add citations. Edday1051 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Conduct by User:Charlesaaronthompson

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

I don't even think I have to explain why this is inappropriate conduct.

• Talk page reply
• Another talk page reply
• Edit summary

This is a continuation of a minor dispute that involved an instance of ownership. The editor had placed a note in an article advising editors not to remove a specific reference from the official NHL website that I considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source, and thus unneeded due to there already being multiple secondary sources, but the editor stated had to be retained because it was an "official" source. While there was stability for a while now, the source in question was recently slipped back in as part of another edit. I removed it again and pointed it out, but then it got reverted, and the revert was accompanied by extremely rude replies by the editor, calling me a "f**king jackass". ViperSnake151  Talk  16:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend a 2 week block for incivility. — JJBers 16:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

He's the one who started it. He's the one who is edit-warring. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

An edit war is between two or more editors, so technically its both of us. However, you did make the first revert, and additionally, there was no violation of WP:3RR. I also did not resort to personal attacks and incivility. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: Stop, this "He did it! He started it! etc." Is annoying. — JJBers 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Oh, so you're just gonna condone ViperSnake151's behavior then? That seems fair. Let's just all gang up on me. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: You're behavior is a larger problem at this moment. — JJBers 17:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not condone ownership of articles, no matter how subtle. "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". ViperSnake151  Talk  17:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: I'm only trying to add productive references. He's not completely innocent here. Stop protecting him. @ViperSnake151: I'm not trying to claim ownership; you are. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

All you're doing is disruptive behavior. — JJBers 17:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this looks like ownership to me. (notice the comment) ViperSnake151  Talk  17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: I give up. You win. It doesn't matter what I say or how I edit; you're just going to take ViperSnake151's side, no matter what. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not a battle, we're not trying to win or lose. — JJBers 17:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Oh, so I should be blocked, but ViperSnake151 should get off scot-free then? Yeah, that seems fair. Whatever. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

While edit warring isn't the best thing, making personal attacks, and owning articles is a way larger issue. Anyways, from what I looked from your WP:AN3 report, it was no violation. — JJBers 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. From the tone of the linked comments, I thought Charlesaaronthompson might be a new user having a frustration meltdown. But no, they have been here since 2010 and have been repeatedly blocked. Therefore, they're expected to know better. Blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

Thank you. — JJBers 17:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is adding "do not remove" comments to articles a thing with this editor? Such comments only should be added if the content is constantly being removed and was the subject of a RFC or RFC-like discussion on the talk page. And again, closers, read this and stop racing to close threads. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. He added hidden messages like this to various NBA, NHL and other teams' articles, but those have since been removed. – 78.157.68.60 (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

He should have added Do Not Remove messages to the Do Not Remove messages. EEng 11:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

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.

---

Resolved

 – Use WP:UAA to report problem user-names in the future! Exemplo347 (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a new editor who's name is "Sandnigg". This is obviously an allusion to the racial slur "sandnigger". I suggest that he be blocked immediately. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 22:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Had to remember how to do that, I haven't done but a couple of username blocks before, but this was pretty obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not that I mind doing it here, but there is a way to report to WP:UAA built into Twinkle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Wait; "You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself"? Wouldn't a better message be "you are encouraged to fuck off and don't come back"? This seems a perfect occasion for {{uw-uhblock}} --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed to a hard block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't write the template, I just do the block. The wording did seem a bit flowery to me as well. I have no issue with you modifying the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The flowery text is intentional in that template; soft username blocks are for good faith editors with username problems. Jerks like this should get the username hard block template (one of the gazillion options way down in the Twinkle pull-down menu). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that now. Like I said, I haven't done but a couple of these, main thing is I wanted to get some kind of block. I think I just did the generic but will remember next time to scroll a bit more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 24 May 2017 (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.

Issue on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

EEng told me "it appears you just don't understand what a manual of style is." When I reminded him that Wikipedia does not permit ad hominem attacks. He replied "You don't know what a manual of style is, and you don't know what an ad hominem attack is." I feel this is incivility and I was sent here to address the issue.LakeKayak (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"You appear not to know what a manual of style is" is not uncivil, it is an observation concerning your behavior - whether it is correct or not, I can't say. Since the observation is not about you as a person, but about your behavior as an editor, it is not an ad hominen. In any case, if it was uncivil, and if it was an ad hominem, it would still be of such a trivial nature that it hardly justifies opening a thread on AN/I. There's is not a chance in hell that EEng would be sanctioned for such a mild comment, and even a trout or a warning is unlikely. My advice: grow a thicker skin, and don't report every little thing, try, instead, to work things out with the editor you are in conflict with. Otherwise your time here is going to be unpleasant for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, we generally require evidence in an AN/I report, in the form of diffs. See WP:DIFF for how to do this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• LakeKayak, let me repeat for the assembled crowd what I said to you elsewhere [214]:

It looks like you have valuable expertise in a special topic area, and Wikipedia could really use your contributions. Please, be guided by the advice of the several experienced editors who have commented (here or on your talk page) and are unanimous: you're tilting at windmills. Don't waste your time (and -- if that doesn't convince you -- others' time) on something so, so trivial like this.

You've been over this tiny question (i.e. whether to refer to the United States as US or USA) on one template [215], your own talk page (with a 3O requested and supplied), three other editors' talk pages, DRN, Talk:MOS, AIV, and now here -- all in 24 hours. If only all that energy could be directed toward editing articles.

EEng 03:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi LakeKayak I'd like to recommend that you read the essay WP:DGAF. It contains good advice that may help you become a happier Wikipedian. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi LakeKayakCurrently the best thing to do is to make 10 Edits using the Random Article game.This is the fail-safe wikitheraphy to wikistress. Alternatively yoga, playing games on the computer ,reading novels(eg;Harry Potter) are the best way to stop your self from getting frustrated as the other editors have said don't report every single thing at ANI Try to settle these disputes mutually.Finally always keep in mind the story of the Wolves and the shepardFORCE RADICAL⭐^⭮@ 08:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to EEng's pithy observations, it appears you don't even know what "incivility" means. EEng's remarks were understatement: earlier in this dispute, you made the ridiculous argument that MOS:USA violates NOTCENSORED.

  Your pursuit of this silly dispute over several forums (MOS, 3O, DR/N, AIV, ANI) is disruptive, and your insistence that a guideline be explained and justified to your satisfaction before you will respect it is unacceptable. I urge you to withdraw this complaint and let this go. Rebbing 12:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack form unknown user

I have been abused by unknown user in reference to the editing in article 'astra'. since the only known user trying to revert my edit was user Adamstraw99, who had also made personal attack in the past(please see my talk page), I am assuming that he/she was behind this again maybe using a sock puppet. I hadn't noticed this in a long time, so I am reporting it now.

here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ankisur2

Please take necessary steps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

On further digging, this is the IP address I found about the abuser. 171.61.18.189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ankisur2: I don't see any obvious reason to conclude that the IP is the same as the account. The IP's edits are so long ago that a block would be pointless, but I do suggest that you remove what looks like a pretty obscene rant from your talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Can anything be done about someone clearly trying to act like my teenage persona?

I was looking at the article for my old high school this evening, and I noticed User talk:Lemon Bay CCV edited it almost a year ago. I think it is obvious that this person is trying to pretend to be me by acting like I did when I was in high school. I'm sorry if I am overreacting, and I know it was wrong to vandalize as a teenager, but this is hurtful and I don't think I deserve to be made fun of like that. LBHS Cheerleader (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC) By the way, I know checkuser is supposedly lousy at proving innocence, but I swear I did not create that account. Sincerely, LBHS Cheerleader (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@LBHS Cheerleader: Is it possible that they are not so much trying to act like you, but just acting like themselves? I.e. could it just be a new young version of you, acting the way you did when you were that age? Murph9000 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt they are impersonating you, more likely a coincidence. I don't think anything can be done about this, as they haven't edited since (about 10 months ago), and the edits don't exactly require a rev-del. I think the best thing to do is just ignore it. SkyWarrior 03:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Their last edit was several months ago. I'm fairly sure this isn't actionable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• It's a good thing trolls aren't encouraged by someone saying how offended they are. EEng 10:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. Lemon Bay CCV made just one edit to the article in question. It was to add "The Varsity Cheerleading team at Lemon Bay has won numerous state and regional competitions." What could possibly be objectionable in that edit? Where is the allegation of vandalism? RolandR (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Firstly, it's not just about that article. The account is named after Lemon Bay and edited the sandbox with a cheer for Lemon Bay. I was known for adding cheers for Lemon Bay to random articles, and I know for a fact that other people pretended to be me. One could chalk everything to coincidence if it weren't for the fact that this seems to obviously be the same editor as User:Cricket communication coalition for lemon bay, and that name just sounds dumb and troll-like, as does the dumb reference to having "Pirate" pride as a Lemon Bay student. Secondly, there seems to be a good reason why all of that account's edits were reverted for being unsourced. I wish Lemon Bay really was the top squad in Florida, and maybe at some point over the years our team has "won" competitions, but it's news to me if the Manta Ray squad has ever taken first place at any statewide competition. LBHS has brought home trophies, but there are thousands of cheerleading squads in Florida that we would have to defeat in order to win a statewide competition, and I honestly think North Port High School has brought home more trophies than Lemon Bay has (sadly). I may be overreacting, but my gut instinct tells me this is some goth chick at Port Charlotte who is making fun of Lemon Bay and me after somehow learning of my shenanigans. I'm sorry if I'm causing trouble, I'm just trying to point out something that I don't think is right. LBHS Cheerleader (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@LBHS Cheerleader: I know you are new to all of this in a way, but WP:Don't feed the troll. I actually saw these accounts myself a few months ago, but I chose to ignore it because doing anything to the account at this point just encourages more bad behavior. The reference to Cricket Communications and Lemon Bay High School combined with an edit to Conservapedia makes this a pretty obvious sockpuppet of banned user "Keegscee" (I'm deliberately not tagging the account) or one of his old guard Rational-Wiki buddies. At this point, when I see Keegscee, I just ignore him unless he's doing something that can't be ignored. He tends to just go away if no one engages him, as evidenced by the fact that these accounts have not edited in over a year. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

as evidenced by the fact that these accounts have not edited in over a year. Don't be too sure about that... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by I'm on day 4

Can someone please take a look at User:I'm on day 4's editing? They've been given way more leeway than most, and are continuing to make unsourced and POV edits to articles. This is becoming very disruptive. I've had an eye on them for a while since I've warned them a few times, but now that they're editing an article that I'm also working on, I figured I should hand it off to someone uninvolved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I went through this user's edits made to the article space in May 2017, and I agree that this user has added content that's either poorly referenced or completely unreferenced (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). Many of these edits look to have NPOV issues as well. Looking through this user's talk page shows numerous warnings for inappropriate page creation, as well as the addition of unreferenced content. These warnings go back as far as the beginning of 2017. This user has also been blocked in April 2017 for disruptive editing.

Because of these numerous warnings, the previous block, as well as the numerous edits I found in May 2017 that continue to add unreferenced or poorly referenced content despite these repeated warnings, I have blocked this account for 72 hours. Any administrator is welcome to extend or remove the block, or change the block per the outcome of a discussion or a response here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Indeffed. This is sockpuppeteer, Daniel L. Barth. See his previously blocked account here, that article was created word for word from the previous year. Here you can see one of his IPs. And here is another one that has a deleted article Kanye West presidential campaign, 2016 that was a recreation of the article written by confirmed sock NotablePeopleFan.

• Special:Contributions/150.216.64.131
• Special:Contributions/150.216.64.89 (check deleted here)
• Special:Contributions/150.216.63.154 (check deleted here also)

• If you have any doubts, you can see his handle in an edit summary here. The sockmaster wrote this hoax.

• Guess who wrote this?

• This IP range is mostly him for at least 4 years. Check out this edit. Checkusers should consider doing a check here because he is known to operate several accounts. Please check collateral for hardblocking that range...anon editing could certainly be blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Throwing up this second range that I haven't gone through enough. About to head for bed.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to assist and help you dig, Berean Hunter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Very kind of you Oshwah, I ran out of steam. Did you find anything else? I can tell you from looking at the second range that I threw up. That we either have another sockmaster that worked as a meatpuppet with the current one being discussed or the other case also belongs to Barth. I think the latter. I can certainly link another case. Going for a coffee, I'll leave a hint and check back to see if anyone has made the connection. It involves that IP, the sock account that I've blocked in this thread and another case. Good exercise for sock hunters.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter - I started digging, but haven't gotten too far yet. I need to look through this sock's past edits and get an understanding of his/her patterns, target areas, typical "red flag" edits, etc in order to be able to proficiently sniff out more ranges and find more disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel L. Barth and connected the second case which is this one. Because DMacks is familiar with the sockmaster, he may be interested and able to find more accounts, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

He's editing from East Carolina University. Put a two week {{schoolblock}} on the range, find the IT department's contact information at http://www.ecu.edu, inform them that there will be an extended block on their campus if this activity continues, follow through with an extended {{schoolblock}} block if activity resumes, and contact the university again to inform them that the disruptive behavior has prompted an extended block. Universities tend to be among the most responsive in dealing with abuse matters, in my experiences at WP:ABUSE. Blocking administrators should use {{schoolblock}} rather than {{anonblock}} because it contains pertinent information for users at educational institutions. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The contact information for the IT department is at http://www.ecu.edu/directory/departments/I. The telephone numbers appear to be under U.S. area code 252. I would not just send something to the email address listed at ARIN.net, as the contact information there seems to often be obsolete unless it's abuse@(domain-name).com (it's not in this case). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor contributions are incoherent and of no relevance or value to Wikipedia

Rachealhealing is repeatedly posting incoherent texts of no encyclopedic value to User:Rachealhealing, User talk:Rachealhealing and User:Rachealhealing/sandbox and also submitting some of these texts to AFC, which simply wastes the time of editors working on an already backlogged process. Repeated warnings and AFC decline messages have had no effect. This editor is simply WP:NOTHERE. (The editor has been notified) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've done a WP:CIR block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit seems to put out the users banking information. Requesting redvel. —JJBers 21:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Curse you, Dennis Brown, I could have really used some extra cash. Just to remind everyone, like it says in the purple box that comes up when you edit here at ANI:

If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs internally...

Really, if someone's silly enough to post bank account #s, don't make it worse by posting diffs here. EEng 21:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking we need to change the edit notice from soft pink to neon yellow. It's really getting ridiculous. Katie^talk 22:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Make it so before you edit, it forces you to fully read, and check a box. Like a Terms and Service. —JJBers 22:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been here so long, I just expect it, so when I see a request, I just jump on it. In this case, I don't think it was quite what it presented itself to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've proposed before that the process of posting a new entry should be modified. An attempt should bring up some check boxes, if, for example, you check the vandalism box, you are sent to the right forum. If you check the Oversight needed box, you are told how to make such a request. You list relevant editors, and they are auto-notified. Only if you click "Other" can you post as you normally would, and if you make that selection, and get it wrong, you'll get a trout. I'm tired of seeing the message, almost daily, that some should not have posted something here. Sometimes, it's simply a time waste, but sometimes it has potentially serious consequences.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That would all be dandy, but I suggest something more fundamental: that before you can post here you have to get at least one other editor to endorse your complaint as ANI-worthy. I'm sick and tired of people pushing the nuclear button for kittens up trees and lost pencils. 1/4 of what gets here is nothing, and another 1/4 could be handled by an admin giving someone a warning. EEng 02:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Which could be achieved with Pending Changes protection. (I'm not proposing this, just pointing out it would roughly accomplish your idea.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting concept, actually, but I think you see the problems. Don't we have an endorsement/seconding requirement for certain other processes? EEng 21:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose EEng's suggestion because it is so often the highlight of my week to see I've been reported here for telling someone they are using a horrible argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

page deletion

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.

---

Resolved

 – Use {{db-u1}} if you want one of your User pages deleted, folks! Exemplo347 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please can someone delete User:Mlemusrojas/commons.js. I mistakenly created it. Mlemusrojas (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, Mlemusrojas the easisest way to have a page in your userspace deleted is to add {{db-u1}} at the top. It puts the page in a category for deletion and an admin will stop by and delete it. ~ GB fan 14:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mlemusrojas: I also take this opportunity to invite you at WP:Help and WP:Teahouse. Happy editing, — PaleoNeonate — 23:19, 25 May 2017 (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.

---

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953 § Legal threat at Chloe Khan?

• Chloe Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, Would this be under a legal threat?, I know in the past I've reported threats here before that actually haven't been so figured I'd ask, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"Ip addresses will be requested from solicitor if this abuse continues" certainly qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And according to edit-summaries in the history of this article, it's not the first time an IP has been flagged as making legal threats. DMacks (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Prior to her involvement in Big Brother, it was a hit piece written around how she was alledgedly dropped from a reality show because of her personal life - there were a number of BLP issues. The article now is essentially the same structure with 'Has now appeared in Celebrity Big Brother' attached to it. (For those not in the UK, Celebrity Big Brother is the bargain basement of 'celebrities'.) Probably needs to go to AFD again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all, So is this actionable ?, I'm surprised nothing's been done so far (If these sorts of legal threats aren't actionable then it's pointless me reporting these?). Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh its unambiguously a legal threat. I was just pointing out there are *issues* that might explain why an IP, possibly related to the subject, might go to the level of making them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated it again as all the issues that resulted in prior deletion still exist. I considered CSD#G4 but not having access to the old version, I don't know if the new text isn't "substantially identical to the deleted version..." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've linked the previous ANI thread at the top of this one. Relevant stuff is WP:DOLT and WP:BLPCRIME. Actually communicating with these IP users is close to impossible, as they are on a mobile ISP which is known to use frequently changing dynamic addresses. Is it "actionable"? Sure, it's a pretty clear violation of WP:NLT, but the violator is likely already no longer on that IP address. Or, do we need to make changes to the article? The IP user has not identified a specific concern, so all we can do is review the content again with a general eye towards BLP and BLPCRIME. As I said in an edit summary (which seems like roughly the best way to communicate with the person or people involved), they should email info-en-q so that they can properly discuss their concerns. Alternatively, it could just be a "hater" (or similar), rather than someone with a proper BLP concern, trying to destroy the page. At this stage, your guess is as good as mine as far as what the specific problem is and whether the person doing this is actually acting on behalf of the subject. Murph9000 (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  I've left another edit summary and now a message on the article's talk page, pointing them to the contact page and info-en-q email, on the basis of DOLT. Murph9000 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ah I had no idea there was a prev thread nor I did know they were on mobile ISP .... so at this point blocking etc is pretty pointless, Personally I think it's someone related to the subject (or the subject herself) wanting the info gone but at the end of the day there's means and ways of doing things, Well I've got the article protected in the hope the IP will either go to the talkpage or will read your edit summary and hopefully voice whatever concerns they have,

Kinda unrelated but if anyone wants to remove parts of the article or send it to AFD I have no objections,

Anyway thanks all for your help - Much appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 13:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC),

Nah, I don't think so. When I read, "Ip addresses will be requested from solicitor", I read that someone whose a COI is going to request that IP editors help him accomplish the goal of deleting the page (as in they're going to recruit people to help them). The summary doesn't say, "you're going to hear from my attorney", or "I will take legal action". I agree that many statements we've seen here can tread very closely to a NLT, but the wording in this edit summary doesn't come close enough in my opinion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In the UK, a solicitor *is* a type of lawyer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

In the UK, a solicitor is a lawyer (attorney), (but might not be a barrister). The issue is a clear, unambiguous legal threat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2017 (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.

Redskins (slang)

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 content/NPOV dispute which I see little hope for resolving without admin input since it is between me an one other editor who uses insulting and condescending language rather that having a respectful discussion. No other editors have made any comments or suggestions after almost three weeks, perhaps because the topic of the article is of no great importance. I have spent some time editing the content, but simply to remove details that were cluttering other articles that do have significance to me.

User: Bromley86 began editing Redskins (slang) on May 7, 2017 by removing a sentence from the lead section;

Use of the term is connected to the history of bounties being paid for Indian scalps.

which was supported by the citation: Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. "What "Redskins" Really Means: An Origin of Violence and Genocide". Beacon Press.

There was no prior talk page comment to explain this deletion, but the edit summary was: "Insufficient support for inclusion in Lead (Body correctly says "controversial etymological claim"), and horrendously biased source (an abducted woman "murders" her captives while escaping!"

I reverted this with the edit summary This "biased source" is a PhD Historian

Later there was an exchange on the talk page:

Your opinion of the "bias" of a PhD historian as the citation for a statement on scalping in the lead section has no weight. An equally reliable published source, with an author of similar academic standing, may be used to rebut or reword to indicate the controversy, but not delete content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, my opinion does have weight: we should always evaluate sources. There will be plenty of qualified people who have misrepresented things, and someone who accuses a woman of murder in that situation is hardly fair and impartial. That's beside the point though. Again, why is this minor point in the Lead? Bromley86 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am frankly shocked that anyone thinks editorial discretion can be stretched to justify what is to me original research. The content dispute has continued, resulting in my posting to the NPOV noticeboard and placing a POV tag on the section in which the content on the relationship of the term "redskin" and the practice of bounty hunting has been reduced to a sentence that states that a single cited source "refutes" the alternative views supported by multiple sources (some of which have been deleted).

What needs to be addressed here is Bromley86's labeling as "obstructive" my insistence on maintaining the content from all reliable sources; and using condescending language to argue that (I am assuming gender) his point of view is the correct one and his ability to read, understand, and summarize sources is superior. For example, one of my comments was labeled "insane". I may also think such things about other editors, but I do not post them. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Content disputes are not within the remit of this board. It would help if Y'all would leave the vitriol out, but WP:DR is the way to go here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2017 (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.

Greg Gianforte 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.

---

Many editors engaging in an edit war, due to breaking news on a political candidate the day before an election. I don't know what the correct action is, but the page needs some protection/involvement from an admin. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:ANEW#User:Amberwaves reported by User:Gamesmasterg9 (Result: ) Three editors are duking it out; they need a cool-down block. — JFG ^talk 03:08, 25 May 2017 (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.

• How about a WP:COOLDOWNBOCK? EEng 14:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite one-way AfD proposal and argument ban

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 to prevent Montanabw from proposing or making arguments for AfD on articles I create. I find the behavior of this editor to be unacceptable. For starters he has accused me of being a paid editor and is relentless in forcing me to answer; see User talk:RonSigPi#Your challenges to AfD. Since I don't owe him or her any answer, but I think it will be reasonably asked here, this is my only account, I have never had a conflict of interest, and I am not being paid to edit. Been on here for almost a decade and never been asked anything like this before. I proposed a reasonable solution - basically stay out of each others way for a while and re-evaluate after a set time - and that was ignored while the aggressive questioning continued. Further, this editor has been defaming my name in public and open discussions; see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NHORSERACING where I was told I was simply gaming the system and see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Horse racing#WP:NHORSERACING where I was accused of misstating and misleading the guidelines. Note in this instance I clearly just quoted what is actually said and other editors had already said that I raised a good point. Maybe this editor does not think its a good point, but to attack me in this way when clearly other editors think its reasonable furthers the definition. Also in these sections, this editor has basically said they will personally be evaluating all my articles. I know no reason why I need such an escort. The vast majority of articles I write have been reviewed and are not subject to AfD. In the last six or so months only about six of those articles I created have been up for deletion (our of dozens created)- four of them by this editor. Of the other two, one of them when new facts were made clear I retracted the keep and even agreed that it should be deleted. Its not as if other editors are constantly finding the articles I create so necessary for deletion.

Virtually all the articles I create meet WP:NSPORT. Some are ultimately found to be not notable, but the vast majority has stood over time. Its not as if the articles I create have no basis - virtually all meet the presumption of notability and virtually all have multiple sources cited. While some may question if those sources are WP:ROUTINE, that a question raised throughout wikipedia, not an issue isolated to me.

In short, it seems this editor has a vendetta against me. While they cite articles that they do not put up for AfD, they still question their validity. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Fryar (2nd nomination), they established WP:NRODEO. That article's subject met the guideline, but then the editor vigorously argued for its deletion. So an editor establishes a guideline and then when a certain editor (me) makes articles that meet that guideline that same editor argues vigorously for its deletion. Outside of that making the guideline pretty useless, it shows they are treating me differently than they intend for all other editors to be treated. This is not an isolated incident (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Bain - notice others say keep, so its not like I am crazy here).

I do not need his or her personal approval to make edits and do not need him or her watching over what I do. The proper solution is to prevent this editor for proposing or making arguments for AfD on articles I create. I see no other solution they will agree with. I have tried hashing this out on my talk page (where he/she initiated discussion), but it only escalated. If I follow guidelines creating articles, but have to constantly worry about meeting an editor's personal standard that has made harsh accusations in this community against me and has said they will continue to monitor me personally, then why would I continue? I think from what has been shown this is the only reasonable solution. RonSigPi (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Response: I never heard of this editor (as far as I can remember) prior to finding that he had created a number of non-notable stubs of very poor quality, first on some rodeo topics and now at horse racing. So no "vendetta." His own talkpage indicates that he creates an awful lot of articles that get deleted, (in contrast, I think I've had one or two out of 250+ over 11 years) and his speed at creating all of these and then gaming the guidelines and doubling down did smack of a paid editor. Those who haunt AfD know that I am more often viewed as an inclusionist than a deletionist (pinging DGG, who can speak to this), so when I do AfD an article, I really do think it's scraping the bottom of the barrel. I only noticed the articles that popped up in areas where I already am active, the equine and horse racing projects. But I noticed at WT:NSPORTS that he self-admitted to creating a bunch of marginally notable articles on golfers, and per WP:BOOMERANG perhaps the person who needs to slow down here is the filer. I shall provide some examples in a moment. Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Example of a recent AfD I was not involved in. Indicative of recent "doubling down" behavior. I have no issues if this editor does a WP:HEY and saves an article. But the Fryar AfD was a very good example of an article where the editor refused to improve the article he created. I note on his talkpage that he has, in the past, worked to improve some articles and thus saved them. Well worth doing, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • That is actually the article I referred to where I had a strong position, was given new information, and promptly changed my stance. In my mind that is a good thing - listening to new information and changing a position when that new information is substantial. RonSigPi (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Here, the editor first says "I never heard of this editor." But here Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NHORSERACING they say "It's crystal clear and this individual is gaming the system with stub creation across multiple topics, including horse racing, rodeo, golf, and, I believe, Boxing." So they have never heard of me, but know my track record for article creation over four different projects? Outside of Félix Verdejo, I don't think I have made a boxing edit in months, so they have either never heard of me or they have been tracking my edits for months. RonSigPi (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know that I've ever encountered either of you, but I can see that the editor may have overstated the case and is not aware of you despite having accused you of "gaming the system". Frequent editors encounter a lot of editors, and if they're like me, don't remember all of them. I'm sure that you will be remembered going forward. And also for the record, there are two opinions about notability guidelines: one is that they don't need to be subservient to GNG, and the other (which most experienced editors espouse) is that they are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I sincerely thank you for your comment. I think someone taking a balanced and step-back approach is always welcome. To me this highlights my concern and my frustration with what has occurred. Reasonable minds can differ and do differ on the guidelines and how they should be used. I even tried saying as much on my talk page. However, I was told that my position, which is to write articles whole subjects meet the guidelines, is a waste of the communities time, me attempting to game the system, etc. Worse yet, when I point out an error/point of confusion in the guidelines, as I did in the horse racing guidelines, I get the most venomous attacks - even when other editors agree the guidelines are not clear enough. There are two sides to every argument and two sides to the notability guidelines, but to me falling on one side should not cause defamation and the like from the other side. Of course I have made this point probably too many times and will just reach editors defending character and not addressing what was said. I do thank you for not only taking a balanced approach to both of us, but for fairly trying to look at what occurred and not personal defense. This is not in any way intended an underhanded comment to montanabw, I appreciate your fair analysis. RonSigPi (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. montanabw is a great editor and not at all prone to automatic AFDs. The user in question creates articles of highly dubious quality and notability, which creates work for other editors in either getting them worthy of wiki or wastes their time reviewing for AFD. May I suggest the user stop wasting time on horses that don't have a major grade I win to their name? For example, look at Jockey Club Gold Cup, one of the most important races in America, and find the redlinks. The Woodward, Travers, Breeders' Cup Sprint, Kentucky Oaks are other race with several redlinks. Note that finding an article on the horse in the BloodHorse does not satisfy notability - they write articles on literally every graded stakes race and a whole of ungraded ones in North America. Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Same could be said of wasting times of editors to defend articles that clearly meet guidelines established by the community to presume notability - especially so with WP:NRODEO where the editor in question wrote the guideline. Also, I don't think someone being a "great editor" is relevant. Someone can be a great father, but still do something they shouldn't. Some people can be a great employee, but still run into a problem with human resources. Montanabw may be a great editor and under WP:GOODFAITH I will believe you. S/he certainly is dedicated considering the overall number of edits and time served. But that does not change that his/her conduct in this instance has been unacceptable. Has nothing to do with him or her being a great editor, but to clearly making personal attacks, harsh accusations (and using the decision to not defend against unreasonable accusation as proof of their validity), and defamation of character. User:RonSigPi (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Insufficient evidence, highly overstated case. Montanabw is a valued editor, and as such it should take a lot more than this to sanction her, even grated that any of this is justified, which I don't believe it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: If anyone wants to review my AfD hits, here you go. I'm clearly someone who leans inclusionist and most of the time that I'm "wrong" it's that I err on the side of keep rather than delete. I have nominated (I think) four of this editor's prior articles for deletion prior to the current drama. Two were deleted, one was kept (and that's fine, that's why we have community consensus) and one is pending. I also reviewed two of this editor's articles (specifically Gunnevera and Afleet Again and determined that, though of poor quality, they meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NHORSERACING and, in fact, this editor's talkpage will show that I thanked him for creating one and offered suggestions for improvement. As a veteran of AfD, I know that stubs with inadequate sourcing are vulnerable targets at AfD and that the article creator, familiar with the subject, is often the best person to do the WP:HEY work to salvage them. (as opposed to dumping the work on others) So, with that, perhaps an admin could kindly assess this filing before it begins to generate more heat than light? Montanabw^(talk) 02:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Both editors here a long time, and should try harder to get along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - BMK hit the nail on the head. Let our seasoned, productive editors go about their business unmolested. - Bri (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Question Honest question. I mean this sincerely. I want to know how I am supposed to resolve this. Montanabw asserted that s/he wrote WP:NRODEO. They wrote that an appearance in the National Finals Rodeo confers a presumption of notability. I wrote an article for someone that does just that. Montanabw then nominates for deletion stating that if they won then they would be notable, but not someone that just competed. They then say I am "gaming the system" to write such an article. So they make a guideline, I follow that guideline and write an article in good faith with at least some sources, they try to delete the article on the premise that the guideline they wrote is faulty, then make accusations at me gaming the system for following their guideline. Honestly, what I am supposed to do with that? RonSigPi (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • • • RonSigPi All of the SNGs (NSPORTS, etc) explain that they are merely guidelines to assist people who assess articles for notability; they do not supercede WP:GNG. Just because something exists that meets the bare minimum standard doesn't mean it's actually notable --even the SNGs usually say something along the lines of "most likely to be presumed notable" -- in your case, look at why Gunnevera is probably OK even though he hasn't yet won a G1 race, versus the two articles I did AfD. Gunnevera won a major GII and had a LOT of press coverage as a Derby contender whose trainer had a fascinating backstory (none of which you mention in your article though). The fillies are winners of extremely minor races and retired without any substantial press coverage or accomplishments. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I 100% agree with you. They are just guidelines. Never said they overtake GNG. They don't. However, to accuse an editor of being a pay editor when they are following the guidelines, making the accusations you have made, and the aggressive nature you have taken with me is not just generally unacceptable, but all the more so considering it is clear I am following established guidelines. Furthermore, when I find a trend (articles on horse being nominated), find a possible reason for this situation (ambiguity in the guidelines that other editors clearly agree is ambiguous), and make neutral suggestion that it be fixed, you attack not just the articles I create, but the overall edits I made (even if the rodeo argument is fair, boxing was just brought in by you). You are confusing the substantive points you are making and how you are handling yourself. From a policy and guidelines standpoint, nothing you are saying is wrong. I have agreed with you, respected your positions, and responded appropriately and accordingly. The way you are attacking me is - its not like you just politely said "Hey, you are writing a lot of marginal articles that seem to be deleted, maybe focus on more clear cut articles", but you personally attacked me and my motives. This is even more concerning when basically I was following your lead - you put out AfDs, I saw why, and asked for clarification. Having people say your a good editor is irrelevant. No one said you weren't - myself included. You have been proceeding in an unacceptable manner. Instead of arguing the righteousness of your actions that have never been in dispute, address how you have acted in accordance with WP:GF and WP:CIV. That has always been the issue here, not if you are right, but the nature of your conduct. RonSigPi (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, my question has nothing to do with articles being deleted. Sometimes we create articles that don't meet GNG, but meet a SNG and they get deleted. So be it. I accept that. I think only once have I substantively challenged a deletion decision. My question is when I follow a guideline in good faith and then not only have the article removed, but then am told I am gaming the system (and basically taking away any good faith you should show towards me), misstating the guidelines, and causing problems through multiple projects (all of which have had their guidelines followed by me) how am I supposed to proceed? Again, its not that the articles get deleted, but I get attacked and accused in response to following the guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I understand what you are saying. It hasn't been so much your writing dozens of stubs on minimally-notable topics so much as your tendentious doubling-down when they were AfD nominated -- and when challenged, you just kept arguing the minimal standard instead of making the case for the subject. It is much better to try and go in to find the sources that you can at least list at the AfD discussion. Ideally, where a person has time, it's even better expand the actual articles to meet the WP:HEY guideline that demonstrates notability. But most of us don't have that kind of time -- save for the articles we actually create ourselves. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • The same could be said to you. Isn't it better to go and try to find sources that have a presumption of meeting GNG than to just AfD? There is noting wrong with responding to AfDs. I don't think this is "doubling down", but explaining why I created it. If you look at my AfD comments, even on other articles, I rarely say "meets/does not meet ""WP:SNG" - I always try to give a reason. If I continuously contested AfD decisions, then you could say I was doubling down and being disruptive. Explaining why I created an article is just plain helpful - lets editors understand why it was create and the basis for that. Its ok if I am not found correct, but I am allowed to comment. And for what its worth, I think its far more important to AfD articles that clearly don't meet GNG (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dougie Gair - I admitted I was wrong) than going after a bunch of articles that at least meet the community guidelines. Better yet, I would rather you write the articles for the redlink Kentucky Oaks winners than AfD marginal articles. Would rather have the notable with the marginally notable than be missing the notable, but make sure we clear out the marginally notable. RonSigPi (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Although this flareup has escalated due to the disagreement of the AfD nominated of questionable articles the best case would be for all to a couple steps back and maybe look at the reasoning and have a plan of action for improvement rather than finger pointing and unnecessary accusations. The OP has IMHO taken guidance of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability#Criteria strongly supporting notability

2. Individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races or the equivalent level in their respective nations

and created articles of stub quality. It is true that under (2.) the articles have a qualified if significant could be qualified. But there has been an active response from those in the Horse racing Project by those who actively contribute to the project that the articles be deleted. This is where the uproar began. The OP did make a significant effort to have his contribution verifiable references. The article on Heart Ashley had five references. So there was some research done to prop up the article so that it would test its inclusion. However, even with the references, inclusion of the article is doubtful. Even with the escalation of this fiery debate it has not changed my mind about continuing with the AfD of the articles including Title Contender who won two GIII Derbys in 2013 and is now an equestrian show jumper. This leads us back to the Horse racing Project that we tweak the notability inclusion so its more definitive so that we don't get into these time consuming debates. I would also ask that the OP joint the Horse racing Project which he has admitted he is not part of and contribute positively. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It is not on you to unilaterally decide whether your articles are notable. If in question, it is on the community via the AfD process. And it appears that in most of these cases, the consensus does indeed agree with her, as it does here. Therefore, your proposal that this highly established editor be sanctioned for some supposed wrongdoing lacks grounds. You need to be able to respect a deletion consensus even if you don't agree with it. Secondly, she didn't accuse you of being paid, having a COI. She simply saw you rapidly creating low-quality stubs of questionable notability in a specific subject area, which was a red flag that she inquired upon. She indicated that had you simply said "no", she would have dropped it. Instead, you issued a way over the top response and immediately called for her to stop nominating your articles for deletion. However, the fundamental implication that this user has it out for you in some way appears to be very false. You can't just ban users who question your behavior from interacting with you. Swarm ♠ 18:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I commented delete on some of the articles montanabw put up for deletion. As I know rodeo, those articles, like Stephanie Frye. And the race horses. I have known montanabw's contributions for some time, and montanabw is indeed more of an inclusionist. montanabw's only concern is for Wikipedia. Montanabw is highly respected and beyond reproach. Montanabw is not the only one who has noticed questionable stubs. As for the OP saying he only created one boxing article in months Felix Verdejo, that is not true. There is an article, Eric Mitchell, created in March, that runs a fine line of being notable. If it is notable, it's just barely so. It's a stub that is a just a laundry list of fights the boxer lost, and one draw. The OP is also pushing the edges of notability in cycling. These two racers are "notable" if they have competed in a UCI World Tour according to NSports. In this case, the 2017 Milan–San Remo race. Well one rider came in 190th place, and one came in 192th place. Only one race is mentioned for each. Obviously, we don't want all these cyclists in Wiki (and that's just one race out of many per year). Rik van IJzendoorn and Umberto Poli (cyclist). And although these two aren't quite stubs because they have an infobox, there are only a few sentences of content. It smacks of the same issue in NSports as qualifying for the National Finals Rodeo in rodeo. Wikipedia is not meant to hold an article for every qualifier at the NFR. And I doubt we want 200 racers from one race in Wiki either. Montanabw is not out of line here. OP could probably make some of his stubs notable with some work, like montanabw said. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Retracted and Resolved Montanabw and I come to a resolution via my talk page. This request is retracted. RonSigPi (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't close yet, as there might conceivably be some boomerang concerns. Sorry, RonSigPi, but having studied your talkpage, I'm a little dubious about this "resolution". Your retraction of the accusations is well and good (and rather belated), but do you think the issues are "resolved", Montanabw? And do the other people who have opposed above? If yes, then by all means let's close. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC).
  • Please review: I am not 100% certain we have a full resolution, though I hope we do, based upon recent posts. My understanding is that I am agreeing not to AfD any of RonSigPi's NON-equestrian articles (though we are unclear on !voting on them if someone else noms them) and RonSigPi agrees to be more thorough and careful in creating articles, at least on equestrian topics. We are defining "equestrian" -- I think -- to include NRODEO and NHORSERACING, but what is unspoken is that NEQUESTRIAN generally probably is included. On racehorses, he can discuss at WikiProject horse racing if he has inquiries about notability. If that's the deal, we're good. Montanabw^(talk) 01:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed What Montanabw said reflects my understanding as well. RonSigPi (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Presume Resolved: We have an understanding, request admin review and close with no need for further action as the parties have reached a meeting of the minds. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 28 May 2017 (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.

Page protection for one year

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.

---

• Gurbaksh Chahal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhadani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am away from active editing for long and may not be aware of the exact policy guidelines. I have come to know somehow that a page has been protected for one year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&diff=781492906&oldid=781492834

I am simply amazed at such a long protection for such a simple page whereas issues appear to be not very serious. In my opinion, protecting a page for one year is simply an insult to the collective wisdom of Wikipedia editors.

I would request for comments and the way to un-protect the page so that the content of the article does not remain static and interested editors are allowed to improve the content/ modify the content to reflect more accurate content suitable for Wikipedia which is essentially an encyclopedia. --Bhadani (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the summary by the protecting admin (User:Primefac)—"will reduce once the issue is sorted"? Deor (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, quite. And semi-protection was tried, only for an autoconfirmed editor to immediately continue the edit war. Article content remaining static is preferable to a bunch of edit-warriors fighting it out. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Bhadani, please remember the orange banner at the top of the edit window which tells you to notify the person whose actions you are discussing at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I just did it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&diff=782251787&oldid=782148809 --Bhadani (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Deor hit the nail on the head as far as protection goes; an AC vandal hit the page right after I had semi-protected it. The length was simply because of the already massive protection log - I didn't feel indef was necessary but a good length of time clearly was in order. In retrospect, EC protection might be sufficient, and I'm okay with it being dropped to that. Definitely not back down to semi, though. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep protected -- I've observed the edit warring in question, and IMO the article should stay protected for the foreseeable future. Similar sentiment has been expressed on the article's Talk page recently. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep protected It looks like Bhadani has not taken the time to familiarize himself with the issues related to this page. The IPs that have been edit-warring to reinstate a promotional, NPOV version of the article have an IDHT mentality and resort to making empty threats and calling others "trolls." They're not going to get it and we don't need to give them an opportunity to wreak more havoc. In my opinion, opening this thread is simply an insult to the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors who have dealt with these disruptive IPs. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep protected The edit warring was completely out of hand, with IPs and new editors and even a paid person (Lingveno, paid by Kabir Singh) jumping in. Chisme (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lingveno had, as far as I am aware, made a full disclosure about his payment per WP:PAID. He was also one of the few willing to use the talk page rather than edit warring all over the place. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep protected - Too much edit warring by NPOV IPs, throwaway accounts and socks. Bhadani may want to familiarize himself with whats been happening before requesting that protection be lowered or removed. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I thank everyone for the comments and elaborating the issue. I may add that imputing that I am making 'an insult to the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors who have dealt with these disruptive IPs' is not correct. I feel light after reading the comments and also understand that background of the issue. However, I still have a little doubt as regards the manner in facilitating the editors interested in "correct content" during the protection continues in force. Anyway, thanks again for neutralizing most of my doubts. --Bhadani (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It may not be correct, but perhaps you should revisit your own comment that I was parroting back at you. Making statements such as the one you made in your original post without knowing the context is not helpful. Lepricavark (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I remember my comments well. I know that it was not necessary on my part. Let us forget and move forward. --Bhadani (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep protected - Per {{Edit fully-protected}}. If an edit is worthy of inclusion the edit request process can be used. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep protected per above. Too much COI and noise going, no other way to control the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse protection but modify to indef semi. We should strive to avoid adding to this list. All of the actual promotional editing is being done by IPs from the looks of the recent history. The confirmed editor who inadvertently restored a copyvio version of the article appears to have done so in good faith. If semi is ineffective then PC should be tried. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• PCR comment I haven't worked this page but I did see the fighting. After a week of full, the throwaway EW autoconfrimed accounts can be prevented by 30/500ing for a month, then prehaps a 6 month PP1 with similar SEMI at the same time. Per WP:30500: cases where SEMI has proven to be ineffective, admins may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:40, 27 May 2017 (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.

Tenebrae WP:HOUNDING

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 had a content dispute with user:Tenebrae on the Gisele Bündchen article. Subsequently, Tenebrae followed me to three articles, Ami Horowitz, Dennis Prager, and Adam Corolla, where they have never edited before, and they made reverts on my edits in all three articles here, here, and here.

Regarding this revert in the Ami Horowitz article, Tenebrae wrote in Talk that at least three editors have reverted me and that I must achieve consensus. Ironically, and to Tenebrae's detriment, they reverted the exact edits that all the others had previously made. In Tenebrae's quest to WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, they made one revert that completely went against months of discussion, consensus, and an entire history of accepted edits. The Ami Horowitz page is high watched and no editor has been afraid to revert, and there has been an active history of discussion, but Tenebrae discounted that all.

Tenebrae should be sanctioned for obvious WIKIHOUNDING, specifically because of their long Wikipedia history. The Kingfisher (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see you've presented real evidence of wikihounding. As the page you linked to says, following editors when you have genuine concerns over their edits arising from what you've see in our article is perfectly normal and accepted. With only 3 cases, and no real evidence presented that their edits were harmful it's difficult to call it wikihounding. I don't really understand your point about going against other editors, the fact that they've gone against other editors and not just you, would seem to suggest they have genuine concerns about what they saw after they followed you due to legitimately concerns over your editing, rather than them trying to target you. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean all their edits were right. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2017 (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.

reverted edits to my userspace 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.

---

This user reverted edits to my userspace page, after I attempted to rescue it from deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mdupont:ListOfNJHistoricPlaces&oldid=prev&diff=782600718 I am really wondering what are the rules of the wikipedia if people are getting so involved in my userspace and making reverts. please help me understand this better, i find it distressful. James Michael DuPont (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mdupont: That is not in your userspace. Your userspace pages (in addition to your main user page) are prefixed with User:Mdupont/, and not anything else. That redirect from a page move should have been speedily deleted a long time ago. It should not have been created with that title in the first place, but that's a very minor issue and we all make mistakes. Murph9000 (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a good explanation! I did not catch that mistake until you explained it, thanks for your patience with me. James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2017 (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.

Unauthorized bot job, unresponsive operator

Resolved

 – Operator states they have disabled the automated editing tool being used.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk · contribs) seems to be running an unapproved bot job on their main account [216]. The code they are running is not compliant with WP:COSMETICBOT, and the operator has continued running the bot for 5 minutes now since my second comment on their talk page - 12 minutes since my first comment - so it appears they are not actively monitoring the bot [217]. I'd like to request a brief block until the bot code is disabled for repair and for moving to a proper bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The edits appear perfectly fine to me. It's replacing [[Foo|Foo]] with [[Foo]], which is an approved task on Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/List of errors (in all cases, per the legend at the top). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's only approved when a more significant edit is made at the same time. This is why it is listed as "cosmetic" in the table at [218]. The lists marked that way can only be done when a more significant edit is performed at the same time, per WP:COSMETICBOT. Moreover, the user is running the bot job on their main account, which is an independent issue. There is still no response from the operator at this point... — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Aha. My misreading of that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That CheckWiki list is definitely not "uncontroversial" or "approved", despite its WP:OWNers unilaterally declaring it to be so. We have a nice shiny recent Arbcom ruling to that effect. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe:, The issue isn't about the edit quality its that they are marked as largely cosmetic, and that it was atuomated edits (which would need a bot flag.)

The relevant tool has been disabled and deleted.

However I will be asking an administrator to disable this account, because owing to the concerns of the original poster. I've effectively lost the trust of the community.

Goodbye. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In summary, I apologise to the contributor that started this ANI report, and the entire Wikipedia community for :

1. The tool-assisted edits, with respect to "WPCleaner" and CheckWiki listed errors. 2. A failue to make myself away of the ARBCOM ruling/decision. It is said in legal matters that ignorance of the law is no defence to an action. 3. That a timely response was not made in relation to the contriutors concern on seeing what they in good faith they had no other reason to think of as anything but a Bot, which under established rules I have also failed to make myself fully aware of, would appear to need a seperate approval.

All three of these by themselves would be regrettable, but to combine them is clearly not the standard of conduct the community expects, especially from a long term contributor. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, did you learn? Will you do it again? If you learned from it and you won't do it again, move on and continue editing. ~ GB fan 20:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, but I don't think it would be appropriate for a couple of weeks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What I meant to say was, I certainly learnt from it, I definitely WILL NOT do it again, (i.e running a bot like WPCleaner in automated mode), and that I will try and wait for the consensus about so termed cosmetic edits to stabalise. I'm still convinced it may not be appropriate for me to resume 'normal' editing for a bit.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps request permission to do it? It seems like a useful thing to me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there at least one other bot that does Foo|Foo -> Foo? I recall seeing such edits in my watchlist articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The editor who was making such edits is currently under sanction by ArbCom not to make any cosmetic-only edits as a result of repeated bot policy violations, which is why you likely haven't seen such trivial edits recently. Such edits have been extremely controversial in the past when (semi-)automated, and they're currently against policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was aware of that case, but didn't realize that the foo|foo->foo edits were theirs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 I support the task and I would like to see more editors doing it. You re doing a great job. If more editors do this then the argument that this is a bot-like task will resolve. Moreover, no strong arguments against it ever presented. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Amazing you managed to be banned from doing something that had 'no strong arguments against it'. Its almost as if you are talking complete rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end Yes, it really amazing because the main argument was not against the edits themselves but about the magnitude. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no policy against these edits. Moreover, Carl intentionally makes wikisyntax harder which may discourage newcomers from editing. RU Rob works as a sidekick to Carl to this mission that forces people to leave Wikipedia. This is subjective and nothing to do with intentions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Anything can change with consensus. It seems people are reforming a consensus to perform similar edits in practice. No strong arguments against these eits was presented. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yourself and SFan does not constitute "a consensus", given that virtually every other person who has commented considers your conduct disruptive. If you really still feel you have the right to make up your own policies as you go along and were only sanctioned on a technicality, ARCA is thataways. ‑ Iridescent 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Iridescent on this, I don't agree with the view that the contributor is trying to present. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent ther are more editors fixing those. There are also editors intentionally making wikisyntax harder. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of Comilla

Resolved

I'm afraid there's quite a bit of vandalism going on at Comilla, List of urban areas by population and List of cities and towns in Bangladesh from anon Special:Contributions/202.134.11.148 (now blocked) and IP neighbours 202.134.14.145 and 202.134.11.137, and new accounts (NAIMUL ALAM MAZUMDER (talk · contribs) and NAIMUL ALAM MAJUMDAR (talk · contribs)). It started on 15th May or before. A dose of protection might help, or perhaps an IP range block. Batternut (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Batternut For protection you might want WP:RFPP. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, WP:RFPP request made. (Hadn't noticed WP:RFPP before). Batternut (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

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:The Banner His focus on FFA P-16 is obvious. He suggests articles from FFA P-16 for deletion for example Bucher aircraft tractor while he ignores similar articles in case their not from FFA P-16. He even started a Sockpuppet investigations on me and FFA P-16 although several others told him that we're clearly not the same person (see there). We both asked him to stop following FFA P-16 (see WP:HOUND and Stop Wikihounding me! with no success. --MBurch (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith when I posted my first several comments, but as it turns out, when one looks at The Banner's edit history a bit more closely, he posts AFDs on an almost daily basis, so the claims that his focus on FFA P-16 is obvious and he ignores similar articles in case their not from FFA P-16 are demonstrably false. The only one who is "obviously focused" on hounding one particular editor is User:MBurch, who has barely made a single edit not related to The Banner in months (his edits to de.wiki are irrelevant, as it seems he is only on English Wikipedia to harangue The Banner). I think that unless this thread is withdrawn and the above baseless remarks about The Banner stricken, a block and/or one-way IBAN (they are possible) should be put on the table for MBurch, and his tag-team partner FFA P-16's disruption should also probably be dealt with appropriately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's indeed not good faith to automatically assume sock puppets on all those that don't agree on someones deletions requests especially after several people mentioned that we're clearly not the same person. At least in German Wikipedia where I mostly edit it would have been just part of common sense for the petitioner to at least excuse yourself after such a mistake. --MBurch (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

MBurch, a clerk endorsed CU on you, and CU confirmed that you were a sock, and you were blocked accordingly for several days. The idea that you were a sock of FFA is not some idiosyncratic idea manufactures by The Banner to punish you for opposing his AFDs. And, more than that, the incident in question was three months ago. Drop it now, and go do something that doesn't involve hounding The Banner, or you will likely be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you are in fact a meatpuppet (which you still really look like, even if CU was wrong to declare you a sockpuppet). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop calling me a sock!? Doug Weller statement was very clear (see his investigations).--MBurch (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:} You should not make the statement that I confirmed an editor as a sock when I later stated that I was mistaken and apologised. It doesn't help and it might be misread. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: My apologies. As you know, CU is a bit inscrutable to those of us who don't have it. My point is that, regardless of whether it was a mistake or whatever, MBurch is not doing himself or anyone else any favours by constantly ragging on about it like he is, nor by insinuating that the whole SPI was a revenge action by The Banner, since clearly the evidence convinced several other good-faith users. This same thing happened a few months back with someone else who was CU-blocked as a sock of User:Kauffner. Apparently on that occasion too, there was some mistake, but even after being unblocked the user continued to do nothing but complain about how he had been mistreated. I do not, of course, think you unblocked someone whom you had already confirmed was in fact a sock -- I don't even think MBurch is a sock. I just think he needs to drop the stick already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijiri88 (talk • contribs)

I accept your apologies while one from The Banner is technically still missing, but I won't insist on that if we find a solution that ends this whole drama. --MBurch (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was apologizing to Doug for my unfortunate language. I was not apologizing to you because I was not wrong to say you were determined by multiple independent parties, based on several different types of evidence, to be a sockpuppet. So you are still very much in the wrong to repeatedly insist that one of those multiple users was motivated solely by revenging you. Rather than insincerely claiming that you "accept my apology", you should be the one apologizing for continuously trying to game the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You insulting me calling me several times a sock and when I kindly ask you to stop and even the checkuser Doug Weller tells you that there's no reason to call me a sock you excuse yourself but not towards the person you insulting? It's true I'm mostly active in German Wikipedia, but I have globaly more than 25'000 contributions which is a bit more than you have thought I'm two years longer active as well but fun fact is that you got several times blocked [219] (one time even for abusing multiple accounts). Maybe you shouldn't really hand out advice yourself. --MBurch (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You insulting me calling me several times a sock Wrong. I never called you a sock. I said your behaviour made you very much look like a sock, so much so that an SPI was opened, a clerk endorsed CU, a CU was performed, and you were blocked for several days. I said this because you kept insisting (indeed continue to insist) that the SPI was baseless, and was only opened as revenge for you !voting in some AFDs. I am not saying you are a sock: I am saying you are engaged in gross ABF, hounding, and otherwise disruptive behaviour. These are not the same thing. when I kindly ask you to stop Wrong again. Nothing about your conduct in this thread has been "kind". even the checkuser Doug Weller tells you that there's no reason to call me a sock Is that what Doug said? I thought he told me to stop using the phrase "CU-confirmed sock" because it was misleading. you excuse yourself but not towards the person you insulting? Yes, I apologized for my unfortunate choice of words. I used the phrase "CU-confirmed sock" to mean "account that has been CU-blocked as a sockpuppet because CU 'confirmed' (in the technical sense used in SPIs) that it was a sockpuppet". I did not apologize for "insulting you" because I did not insult you. I said you were misrepresenting history to make The Banner's behaviour sound worse than it was, and assuming bad faith on the part of the user who opened the SPI but not the clerk that endorsed it or the CU who blocked based on it. It's true I'm mostly active in German Wikipedia Nope. You are only active on German Wikipedia. Before November 2015, you had eight edits on en.wiki. Then you started showing up on deletion discussions involving The Banner, and your rate of editing on English Wikipedia went up exponentially. Your spurt of edits since February of this year has been devoted almost exclusively to The Banner. Stop hounding The Banner. but I have globaly more than 25'000 contributions which is a bit more than you have Umm... so what? thought I'm two years longer active as well That's ungrammatical and doesn't make a lot of sense. You first became active on de.wiki (the only Wikimedia project to which you have made a substantial number of edits) in 2013, while I have been fair consistently active on English Wikipedia since 2012, and my account's official age is five years older than yours; I was an active contributor between 2005 and 2008, then left the project while in university, as I was during that period awarded credits for the same type of writing that I was doing on Wikipedia for no reward. But again, what does this have to do with anything? but fun fact is that you got several times blocked Actually, if you look at the background, most of those blocks were for technically violating a couple of IBANs, while the other users with whom I was banned have since either been site-banned for obvious NOTHERE trolling and the hounding of me that originally led to the IBAN (in the case of Catflap08) or left the project because ... they were obvious NOTHERE trolls, who, once they were no longer allowed troll me and other users active in a particular topic area, they eventually gave up and left (in the case of Tristan noir). Both of these IBANs have been dissolved, one back in February 2013 and the other in March of this year. But again -- what does any of this have to do with the dispute between you, FFA and TB? Are you just being deliberately antagonistic? Going back through other users' (years ago) block logs) is a fairly good indication that you are the one engaged in hounding. You are, at the very least, behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. one time even for abusing multiple accounts Again, context. I was not abusing multiple accounts. I accidentally edited while logged into this account because this account had email enabled and (at least at that time) I was unable to use the same email address with more than one (declared, legitimate) account. This account (which I had said I would not use to edit English Wikipedia during the period in which the Coldman the Barbarian account was active) was then blocked from editing English Wikipedia. If I had not volunteered not to use my main account to edit English Wikipedia (because of some off-wiki harassment by a site-banned troll who had figured out my workplace and parents' home address) it almost certainly would not have been blocked. I was, at the time, formally retired from editing, but I became aware that a user with whom I had previously conflicted was going around systematically reverting my edits, and decided to report the problem, but I didn't want to log into my main account to do it because another user was actively monitoring my main account's contribs, and harassing me off-wiki. Again, context. Please apologize for your gross, off-topic personal attacks against me, or I will request that you be blocked. Maybe you shouldn't really hand out advice yourself. Right back at ya, big guy. You should be blocked for your behaviour in this thread, let alone your disruptive hounding of The Banner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@MBurch: I'm going to repeat the most important part of my above response -- please apologize for your gross, off-topic personal attacks against me, or I will request that you be blocked the next time you make a comment like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to attack you at all, I just believe you're comments were not much helpful. In my personal opinion you increased the conflict while others tried to find a solution in short, brief words. Fact is I signed up 21th of November 2010, I have globally over 25'000 contributions mostly in German Wikipedia, but a few on commons, wikidata and others, too [220]. --MBurch (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It's good to know you didn't mean to attack me, but that's what you did. And if we discount FFA and The Banner themselves, you are the only one here who has not been working to find a solution to the problem, as you are yourself a significant part of the problem (indeed, you have scarcely contributed anything to English Wikipedia beyond fanning the flames of this dispute). You opened this thread as part of a tag-teaming/hounding campaign on your part, and since opening it you opposed my first pro-active attempt to resolve the problem, posted an extremely suspicious support for Kleuske's (which made it look like you intend to game and undermine it), and would probably oppose any solution MilborneOne might have that doesn't either specifically single out The Banner or allow you to continue specifically singling him out. It's not even clear who you are talking about when you say "others". Apart from Kleuske and myself, and the involved parties themselves (you, FFA and The Banner), the only people who have commented here have been one-off drive-by commenters. Speculation as to the reason for that aside, it would be appreciated if you didn't continue to insinuate that I have been "not much helpful" and am working to "increase the conflict" when the one who is being deliberately and needlessly inflammatory is clearly not me. Also, you still have not apologized. Demanding that others apologize to you for using unfortunate/misleading wording in a good-faith attempt to deal with the core issues here, while simultaneously refusing to apologize for your own blatant and unprovoked personal attacks, is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• He "worked" only on 3 Airports, Amsterdam (probably because he is from the netherlands) , Dublin (probably because he live in Ireland) he doesn't worked on any other Airport article.. except of deleting out informations of Zürich Airport (the biggest Airport of SWITZERLAND).
• The only Air Force Base he was "working" on was the Dübendorf Air Base (an Air Force Base of SWITZERLAND) trying to delet out informations about the Zero-G flight and other stuff.he doesn't worked on any other Air Force Base article of the whole world.. and BTW Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dübendorf Air Base[221] The only Air Base he want have deleted was an Air Base from SWITZERLAND. No oter tiny dusty airfiled somewere...
• The only aircraft project he want have deleted was not for e.g. the Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka no, he wantet the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha[222] from SWITZERLAND , created from me,do be deleted.
• The only aircraft (build) aircraft page he nominatet for deletion from him was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85 from SWITZERLAND, created from me.
• The only airshow page(again created from me) he nominatet for deletion[[223]].was the one about the Air14
• The only page about an Aircraft Type he was deleting out Informations is the Pilatus PC-24 from SWITZERLAND, interestingly what is "not-notable for ihm there

not bother him on any other page like Fairey Delta 1, Avro Ashton, Hawker P.1052.

• From all Modern aerobatic teams and Disbanded military teams his only interest is to suppress Informations of all 4 Teams of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND, on no other Modern aerobatic team or Disbanded military team was touched from Banner. Things which he can not stand in any relation to the 4 Teams (Two of them the Superpuma Display and the F/A-18 Hornet Display had I creadet) of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND not bother him on any other page even with a hint he doesent touched the Dutch Solo Display Team or F-16 Demo Team.
• The only Air Force page who he tryes to "clean " is the one from SWITZERLAND.. Even if ther is an update or change in some projects (for eg. That the C-17 is no more a candidat as Cargoplane for the Swiss Air Force he does not want to admit.
• He attacked in this timeframe my userpag. Inn my eyes he has also much not notable stuff on his userpage.. but I would never touch it.

So he is usualy not active in Aviatic topics most of the time with total differend topics , like Restraurants, Beautycontests,... But if it is something about swiss aivatic, and if I had creadet the page or just add a few words, all hell breaks loose. I have the feeling this is Wikihounding.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nils Hämmerli[224] Kunstflugkommandant
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medisize Schweiz AG[225] Swiss plastic industrie
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terxo AG[226]Swiss plastic industrie
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isopress AG[227] Swiss plastic industrie
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGP 3 Trailer[228] sole article about a bustrailer he nominated for deletion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug[229] Only Museum he want have to be deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)[230] he wanted the next commander! of the Swiss air Force deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force ALBA[231]The only military mission he wanted to be deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPHAIR[232]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination)[233] ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like M2 High Speed Tractor) got nominated for deletion..
• The only air surveilance systems he nominadet ever are two from switzerland/ I had creadeted:[234] The FLORIDA System and [235] SRF System.

Also on EVERY Article from me who was nominated from someone else for deletion.. guess what.. he voted for delet, not a single who he didn't touched.

Non stoping provocations [236] Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me.[237]

Everyone who came across from the german Wikipedia to support me in a deleting discussion got attacked from him in rude words. But not enough.. he started also a checkuser against me and several other persons.. knowing very well that no one is a sockpupped.. He had done this only because of its maliciousness.

If I add some informations somewhere he deled it out with comments like fancuf, fanboy, not notable, irrelevant ,.. But on the other hand he is insisting on such nonsense:[238]. all this is only the peak of all the mobbing, editwarring, stalking from The Banner against me... and this again is only his constant attacks against me.. a lot of other users have to suffer because no one stop him.. a lot of users (who brought in valuable Informations ) have resgnated and left Wikipedia for ever.

Also he is constantly watching My talkpage.. If someon had left there a positive feedback about an article from me like here: [239] he starts to provocate [240]. Not only that he is stalking me in the “open” part of Wikipedia, he is also browsing on my not “open” pages on Wikipedia. He cleaned all this informations out and threatened me with a block warning on my talkpage. Also nomnadte he my ‎User:FFA P-16/workpage19 for deletion. He is damaging Wikipedia with his non stop deleting nominations. Also the Banner is behaving very aggressive against other people in other deleting discusions [241] FFA P-16 (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

When I edited the page of Zurich Airport (the circle section) the user The Banner delated my New adding without a giustification. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z%C3%BCrich_Airport&type=revision&diff=688550466&oldid=688546793 The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) BOOMERANG, anyone? The OP was blocked in February as a CU-confirmed sock of FFA P-16, and the two were shortly thereafter unblocked because CU was apparently a false positive or some such. But whether or not they are the same person, MBurch has not made any edits to English Wikipedia since being unblocked except to !vote in several AFDs opened by The Banner and otherwise harangue The Banner. Whether The Banner is hounding FFA might need to be looked into (I haven't), but that MBurch hasn't made any edits that haven't been related to The Banner is obvious. The evidence that the Banner is hounding FFA seems to be limited to the claim that the former has been posting several of the latter's articles for AFD (and this is borne out by this). But per AGF, we must assume that The Banner sincerely believes his/her stated rationales for said AFDs, and the fact that several of them have passed with consensus to delete means that said rationales may be justified. If one finds an editor writing a lot of articles on topics that one sincerely believes do not meet GNG, posting said articles for AFD is not "hounding". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88, it is not that he nomiated Coincidentally this for AFD because he is thinking it does not meet GNG. like I sayd above.. The ALR Piranha was the only aircraft project he nominated he did not put one of this in question Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka. He nominadet Bucher aircraft tractor (who i had writen) [242] for deletion.. it had a few references ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like U-30 Tow Tractor and MB-2 tow tractor who have NO referenc) got nominated for deletion.. The number of from The banner nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and draves a clear picture...The only UAV he ever nominadeted was writen from me he never nominated ANY other UAV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85. Very interesting is that ther is now a long line of AfD s from against articels from me..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker. That are just a few exampels.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to contest the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination), ANI is not the place to do it. If you want to nominate other pages for deletion, ANI is also not the place to do it. The fact that most of the AFDs you referred to above resulted in deletion means that the nominations must be taken in good faith. If you think someone is hounding you, you need convincing evidence thereof. I have only so far seen convincing evidence that your friend MBurch is hounding The Banner in your stead. I will admit that I have not read your wall of text, and I do not intend to; writing a massive wall of text with very few diffs is normally a pretty solid indication that you don't have such evidence. Maybe you should have told MBurch to hold off on this ANI thread until you had the diffs prepared? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Honored Hijiri 88.

It's not about rebooting AfD's, but about the abusive position of AfD's and wikihounding of The Banner against me.

Please do not made the victim to the guilty and the guilty to an victim.

MBurch was massively attacked by The Banner when he spoke in AfD's for the receipt of my articles. He also saw The Banner battling systematically against me, and merely asking The banner to stop it. He never bothered any work of The Banner. Likewise, Zurich00swiss also knew that he had never bothered the work of The Banner but was attacked massively by The Banner in his work on the subject of Airport Zurich and the AfD's where he spoke out to not delet my articles.

You do not seem to understand. The Banner is systematically following me, and specifically targeting AfD's against articles written by me. It is not about quality. If you would read the text from me, you would see that he makes various articles of me AfD in subjects where he is never active (UAV, Air Base, Aircraftprojects, Radar system, ..) In all these areas it has Several articles written by other users who meet much less the requirements, but he has not proposed any of them to the AfD. Some have not a single referenc or weblink ..he never touched it, but my article with references... This makes it quite clear that he has it only on me. Examples I have brought above enough.

Just to look at the some articles from me(not all!) who In AfD's had been deleted .. not to read my "long" text and then to decide The Banner is innocent. Sorry but this is not a factual investigation of this problem.

I ask you to take the time and really read and examine all my foundations. If you do not look at everything it makes no sense that you deal with this case. Then I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. Thank you.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, first, please learn to indent consistently. It's difficult to respond to you otherwise.

If you are not interested in undoing the AFDs, then why are you trying to go back and discredit the grounds on which they were posted for AFD? The Banner's behaviour in posting those particular pages to AFD could have only constituted hounding if he didn't sincerely believe that those pages should be deleted on their own merits. If you are creating a bunch of articles that should be deleted per our inclusion criteria, the problem is with you, not The Banner. Even if he found those pages by checking your contribs, that is still legit and does not constitute hounding.

No, MBurch only posted in those AFDs because they were opened by The Banner and because the articles in question were started by you. Maybe The Banner attacked MBurch for that (you still haven't provided any diffs...), but it's abundantly clear that MBurch has been hounding The Banner -- MBurch hasn't done anything but hound The Banner.

Again, if The Banner's AFDs had merit, then what he did was not hounding. Even if it was systematic, the problem is with you writing articles that almost uniformly get deleted when posted to AFD, not with him posting them at AFD. I will explain this by giving an example. About three years ago, I noticed that a certain user was showing a severe failure to read sources and present what they said accurately, on an article that was on my watchlist. No matter how hard I tried to explain it to him, he just didn't seem to get it. I then got suspicious that he might have engaged in similar disruption on other articles, so I checked his contribs and found that my suspicion had been correct. When I pointed this out on the talk pages of the other articles (which weren't on his watchlist and which I had "followed" him to) I too was accused of "hounding". But I wasn't hounding: I noticed a user engaged in problematic behaviour and dealt with it accordingly. Even if that is what The Banner did here (and you still haven't presented any evidence that that is even what is happening), the problem is most likely with you, not The Banner. Otherwise, why would almost all of the pages have been deleted?

For what it's worth, I did check how often The Banner posts articles for deletion. Of his past 300 new page creations in the Wikipedia namespace, 296 have been AFDs, and that's only since January 1 of last year. That's 0.61 AFDs per day over a period of 16 months -- are all of those AFDs hounding of the users who created the articles? And do you really think you're the first one to try to accuse him of hounding rather that reflecting on your own understanding of our includion criteria? (I actually don't know. You might be. But I doubt it.)

And no. No one is under any obligation to read your massive wall of text, in which you provided no diffs or other clear evidence, before commenting to the effect that you have provided no diffs or other clear evidence. If you don't provide evidence in support of your claims, all the rest of us can do is go looking for ourselves. And if what we find doesn't support your claims, that also is not our fault.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Again, it is not about quality. Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. I have listed this above. It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is right..it shows only exesive use of AfD.. and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. ..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like [[[Austrian air defense]] or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker.Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left. If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. This is important- Thank you &byeFFA P-16 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Nope. If he sincerely thinks you don't understand our inclusion criteria (and, again, he does sincerely think that until proven otherwise), then checking your contribs and nominating certain pages written by you for deletions is perfectly acceptable.

Again, it is not about quality. Then how come, on seven of the ten AFDs you linked above, there was clear consensus to delete the pages?

Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. Again, NO. No one is under any obligation to do more or less than they wish on Wikipedia. We are all volunteers here. And there are no articles on the same topics written by other editors -- do you mean "on similar topics"? If so, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe that those other topics don't meet GNG, you should nominate them for deletion. Don't attack The Banner for not nominating them.

It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. I have listed this above. Good for you. Unfortunately, no one said that. I said most. Specifically, 7 out of 10 of the AFDs you linked ended in deletion. And actually, of the other three, two should maybe be reconsidered with MBurch's !vote being discounted as HOUNDing.

The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. If you think that demonstrated abuse of the AFD process, then maybe you think the other four users who !voted to delete (and maybe even the one said "weak keep") are hounding you as well? On top of that, your own conduct in that AFD (repeatedly refusing to focus on content and making constant off-topic remarks about how you don't like The Banner) was atrocious. Linking to it was not a good idea.

Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is right..it shows only exesive use of AfD.. No. Lots of editors open a lot of AFDs. I don't know The Banner's particular circumstances, but some monitor new pages, which include a disproportionate number of autobiographies by non-notable individuals, blatant advertising, etc.

and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. Wait, what? No one who opens that many AFDs is focused on one topic, so the fact that he doesn't have a particular focus on airports or the armed forces (?) is irrelevant.

Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left You clearly are not comfortable with me addressing all the numerous problems in those portions of your comments I have read -- do you really want me to go through your first massive wall-of-text and detail all the ways it is wrong and lends itself to my BOOMERANG idea? For example, you say that he is watching your talk page (again, something he is allowed do) and "provocating", but your "diff" of said is a blank link to the Tupolev Voron article, which The Banner has never edited. I thought for a few minutes you were (falsely) accusing him of tagging the article as needing a copyedit and went through it to see if it was accurate, then I looked around a bit and noticed this. You do still need to provide proper attribution when you translate from German Wikipedia, and if you translated the version that was originally written by you a year earlier, you need to note that, because, if you translated the version as it appeared when you put the translation on English Wikipedia and had been edited by about a dozen other editors, there is a copyright issue. You then go on about not “open” pages on Wikipedia, which makes no sense to me. A bit above you Non stoping provocations with a malformed link to four comments by multiple users, in which The Banner said nothing even approaching incivility. Then you say Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me with a similarly malformed link, in which The Banner responds to MBurch's hounding attacks on him in a fairly reasonable manner. Seriously, what are you asking me to look at with all this?

If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Please familiarize yourself with how ANI works. Like the rest of Wikipedia, ANI is voluntary. No one will touch this case, because you made it too long and unintelligible. The thread will likely get archived with no further involvement from any outside parties, unless I open a separate subthread with a coherent argument for some solution to whatever problem I perceive as going on here. And your absolute refusal to provide evidence for your claims (in case it isn't clear, I did read the small portion of your wall of text that appeared to include diffs) is making me inclined to do so in a direction you apparently don't want.

Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. No one is going to read your massive, incoherent walls of text. If you have concrete examples, you should link them. I read through everything you provided that had a link attached to it, and didn't see anything of substance.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri. But you obviously do not want to see it. He nominates me very clearly articles in areas where he is never active. And there only items of mine no others. Even if he makes a lot of AfD's strikes this conspicuousness. I also find it wrong the people who have voted for the receipt of some articles from me and who have approached the unfriendly approach of The banner now condemned for their substantive contribution. There will be no factual reasoning on the examples which I have brought forth. Only weill The banner many edits and AfD's makes it is not trustworthy. The only thing I want is that he leaves me alone. Clearly all work here voluntarily. But this is not an obstacle for someone else to take care of this case. I am very disappointed that you do not take me seriously.

If you are not willing to take care of my concerns and no one else wants to take care of this case, I see no further meaning in this discussion. Then you can close it because it brings nothing and will only encourage The Banner in the fight against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you clearly can't be reasoned with. I have read everything you have written on this page, and there is nothing to it. But you are clearly not interested in acknowledging that fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I did not want to reply at all at this thread. It is the another instance of the ongoing harassment and bullying campaign of mr. FFA P-16 and his assistant MBurch. It is loud and clear that MBurch is called in to protect FFA P-16. Although his bullying/harassing is annoying, it only confirmed to me that the advice given to mr. FFA P-16 is completely ignored. And he stepped up his campaign after I nominated an attack page for deletion. He seems to think that sandbox pages are sacrosanct and untouchable to others. And that the rules of Wikipedia do not apply to him. See User talk:The Banner/Archives/2017/May#Stop Wikihounding me!. He also seems to think that I have a personal grudge against him because he is Swiss. As a matter of fact, I do not care at all about that. But I have told/advised/urged FFA P-16 to do three things:

1. Get a clear idea of what the community regards notable
2. Get a clear idea of what the community regards as proper sourcing according to WP:RS
3. Get a clear idea that it is worthwhile to make an effort to improve your English

I have seen no effort whatsoever to address these issues.

Mr. FFA P-16 also took offence out of my sockpuppet investigation relating to MBurch. He seems to have forgotten the fact that he is earlier blocked for sockpuppetry, [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive|here] and and on the Dutch Wikipedia.

To finish this off: I do not seek any blocks. What I want are two things: a) that the present campaign stops, and b) that FFA P-16 makes a visible effort to address the three issues listed a few lines above. The Banner talk 09:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Circle at Zurich Airport

• (Moved from the bottom of the page, as this is clearly subordinate to the main thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

When I edited the page of Zurich Airport (the circle section) the user The Banner delated my New adding without a giustification. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Diffs please. I can't see anything in the recent history that supports your claim... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss: Please provide diffs, and if you posted the above in an attempt to "pile on" because you just don't like the user in question, note that you may well be met with a boomerang for hounding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite one-way interaction ban

Okay, I was annoyed enough by FFA's disruption clearly on display in this thread, but now that it's been pointed out to me that he created a WP:POLEMIC about The Banner here and denied the SPEEDY request with the counter-policy statement that Its MY workpage[243] it's clear that something needs to be done. I'm therefore requesting that FFA P-16 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with The Banner (talk · contribs). If The Banner nominates a page written by FFA for deletion, it should be the community's decision, and the project will not benefit from FFA showing up and posting more off-topic personal attacks against The Banner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, user X requests a majority of user Y's articles for deletions and you suggests now that Y is now allowed to even argue with X on those deletion requests of his very own articles (since there is no other interaction from Y besides that workpage19 which should be simply deleted)? --MBurch (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@MBurch: So you agree that User Y created an attack page about User X that should be deleted, and when it was requested that the page be deleted User Y reverted the request and placed a statement on the page that he owns it and so presumably can post whatever he wants on it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware of actio et reactio. --MBurch (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume that you are implying that since The Banner was the original aggressor, FFA was justified in creating that attack page and preventing it from being deleted? But you still have not presented any evidence that The Banner was the original aggressor. Both of you are claiming that he nominated a bunch of articles created by FFA for deletion based not on the merits of the article but out of a desire to hound FFA. But I presented you with pretty incontrovertible evidence that this is not the case. The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion, and in all but a few of the cases you listed a plurality of other editors agreed the pages should be deleted. All I am seeing is The Banner posting Good Faith AFDs (and constructive criticism of honestly pretty atrocious articles that don't necessarily merit deletion), FFA refusing to listen, and assuming bad faith by accusing The Banner of HOUNDing. You can try asking JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) what happens when you constantly make bad faith accusations of HOUNDing while engaging in HOUNDing yourself. That guy actually got SBANned for his efforts, then engaged in block-evasion via several IPs and actually did revenge-AFD a bunch of articles I had written (well, actually there was only one AFD opened via proxy, two article blankings, and one successful PROD of a sub-stub). You clearly do not know what you are talking about when you talk of HOUNDing; I do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion and he suspects always sockpuppets when they don't agree? Of course not just in our case and just in the case of FFA P-16 he nominates several pages together. --MBurch (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@MBurch: That is a personal attack and you should strike it unless you can provide evidence. If you are referring exclusively to the FFA SPI where you were blocked, you should say as much. On top of that: You were confirmed by CU to be a sock of FFA P-16, and CUs need a lot of DUCK evidence before they agree to perform that procedure, and the check was pre-endorsed by an SPI clerk. It's an established fact that FFA P-16 has abused multiple accounts in the past and in the case of you and M1712, it was really frickin' obvious that something fishy was going on, be it sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Just drop it already and go edit articles, or you will be reblocked as WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you were later vindicated with regards to your not actually being the same person as FFA P-16. It's been three months -- let it go, as the wickedly talented Adele Dazeem would say... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No this was not an attack, this was collecting cases of actions against me, so that I can bring this here on Ani. You broght it by your self to the light.. here you can see that he is following me [244] yes hi is doing a lot of deletions 0,6 per day in one year is a lot (and in some kind it smells as to trigger happy for AfD's). But if you have a look ate the list you have presented [245] It is not on random themes (Tv Stations, beauty contest persons) the pattern definitive fit not to the topics of my articels (military aviation, swiss). It is understandable that many new articels come to AfD, but also this dosent fit here because he nominated just in the past few weeks articels from me who existed since 3-4 years. This is no coincidence.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

FFA, it's been several days, so I'm going to start being frank. Your English is terrible, and at best difficult to decipher, and you clearly are not reading and fully understanding my comments. So please refrain from responding in other users' stead, because it makes discussion extremely difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You have already forgotten my talkpage? And take a look at the talkpage of mr. FFA P-16. Not the current version, as he wipes out everything he does not like, but the older versions. Like this one. The Banner talk 13:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the Talkpage is there for to communicate wit an other user, or inform ihm about something.. I informed you that i wish that you stop follw me. How should I communicate with you without using the talk page. everyone can clean its talkpage like he want.. it is nothing wrong with deleting old stuff and its also not wrong keeping some of it. Also veryon can keep positiv replays on the talk page if he wish. that you are monitoring my talkpage and their history shows again suspicious direction stalking FFA P-16 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have informed you about issues with notability, issues with sourcing and issues with your language and all this was ignored. Not even the spell checker you took aboard... The Banner talk 21:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Everything probably a reason for an improvement tag but not for AfD, also the one with Bernhard Müller is a good example that your interpretation of notability is also not always correct. And if you posted this on my talk page.There is no need to let it stand there, so I can empty the talk page whenever I want. That is nothing bad.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

quod erat demonstrandum --MBurch (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support, non-exclusively. This would clearly solve the main behavioral matter. Someone below said they'd considered proposing a simple site ban for FFA P-16, on WP:COMPETENCE grounds, and this was also my instinct after reading this ranty, barely comprehensible mess. However, I'm a firm believer in letting the tiger show its stripes, so try Hijiiri88's softer proposal here first. Some of the additional details in the proposal below have merit, as well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Yup, most of the disruption seems to be coming from one side of the line. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

There are several problems, here.

• FFA P-16 has a poor command of the English language, resulting in poorly written articles.
• FFA P-16's love of the Swiss air force leads him to loose sight of notability issues.
• The Banner has been hounding FFA P-16, nominating nearly every article FFA P-16 started. been communicating extremely ineffectively.
• The Banner has a tendency to skip due diligence before nominating FFA P-16's articles. Case in point Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer).

The drama has been going on at least two years. This has to end.

A proposed solution:

1. FFA P-16 is only allowed to create new articles via the AfC-process. This will address the language and notability problems.
2. An interaction ban between The Banner and FFA P-16 (both ways). This includes a ban for The Banner to nominate any article created by FFA P-16, thus eliminating 90% of the drama. If The Banner feels one of FFA P-16's articles is so bad it must be nominated, he can alert another editor to the problem, who can then nominate it.

Kleuske (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I volunteer my time to a) check any of FFA P-16's articles and b) look at any problem The Banner sees with any of FFA P-16's articles and nominate if necessary. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kleuske: You should strike bullet point 3. No evidence of hounding has been presented. ArbCom actually explicitly stated that checking a user's contribs for legit reasons (like the good-faith belief that the user doesn't understand notability guidelines, a belief you admit you share). See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hounding. You can read through the entire case if you want, or you can take my word for it: his was pretty much the same situation, with users make the same faulty assumption (in violation of AGF) that what was happening constituted "hounding". You admit in bullet point 2 that The Banner had a good-faih reason for examining FFA's contribs, so what you are doing is arguably worse than what the Committee described there: you are declaring bad faith against your own declared understanding to the contrary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support this proposal in place of my own, assuming User:The Banner (who still appears to be the victim here, per all the evidence I've seen) is game for a mutual IBAN, which would protect him from further harassment. In my experience, mutual IBANs are very easy for harassers to game, so I would add that the IBAN be slightly modified to allow requests to observers like Kleuske and me (but not obvious meatpuppets or the like) to look into it and decide whether there has been a violation to be covered under BANEX. Put in other words, messages about the other user on the user talk pages of no more than one or two other users at a time should be allowed in lieu of reporting violations directly to an admin or on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed to unconditional supportThe Banner's extremely immature response to Kleuske's good-faith attempt to resolve this (immediately below) has convinced me to change my mind. I still think he is the victim of hounding, and I still think the proposed IBAN will quickly be gamed by FFA and MBurch, but I just don't care anymore if The Banner is going to show more interested in fighting over it than actually resolving it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Conditional support The proposed solution would solve the problem, and I think The Banner should voluntarily accept it for the time being. IBANs are super-easy to appeal once the other party gets site-banned or stops editing once their articles continue to get deleted. I'm changing back to conditional support, not based on the condition that The Banner voluntarily accepts, but based on the condition that Kleuske's flawed premise is stricken. I had actually forgotten until just now that ArbCom had explicitly ruled in my case (a case quite similar to this in several ways) that (1) actions amounting to what The Banner has done do not constitute hounding, (2) actions amounting to what MBurch has done (though over a longer period of time) do constitute hounding (if not off-site and/or stealth canvassing or meatpuppetry), and (3) what MBurch, FFA, and even (to a lesser extent) Kleuske have done is contrary to AGF. Kleuske should strike out bullet point 3, or my support for this proposal (based on a flawed and problematic premise that's personally offensive to me as a former victim of hounding) should be taken as null and void. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It takes some effort from both sides to keep the drama going for this amount of time and The Banner does not show an attitude that's particularly conciliatory or helpful. Instead he shows all signs of holding grudges. I have trouble seeing The Banner as a victim. Kleuske (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: If either of them try to game the AfC process or the IBAN, I will personally report them here and request a block. Promise. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It took you a long time to show up here, Kleuske. And your attempt to put the blame on my shoulders is just as predictable as you showing up here. But your statement (...) nominating nearly every article FFA P-16 started. is evidently false. The Banner talk 15:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner: You're not helping... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

True. But Kleuske and me have a long record of personal discord. Beside that, in my experience the AfC-process only looks at the notability of a subject, not to quality, sourcing or spelling. So it will address only one part of the signalled problems. The Banner talk 09:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter from who the proposal is, but only if it's able to solve the problems.--MBurch (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

But I am willing to step aside for a while and see if Kleuske, MBurch and the AfC-process really can help fix the issues. I promise to stay away (for starters) to 1 July 2017. The Banner talk 11:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be more than just a temporary stop especially since you're in general not writing in Swiss Air Force aviation as FFA P-16 does.--MBurch (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Kleuske. I will agree 100% to your solution. And all rouls who this solution contains for me.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't thank me yet, i'll require significant coverage in reliable sources. I was this close to proposing a site-ban for competence issues and this does not help. Hör mal... Dein Englisch is wirklich grottenschlecht. Fast Kauderwelsch. Du must dich wirklich mal überlegen ob du sinnvoll beitragen kannst wenn fast jeder satz praktisch übersetzt werden muss. Kleuske (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• SupportKleuske's proposed solution.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree and I volunteer my time to improve FFA P-16's articles. --MBurch (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Will end the drama and help the editors and Wikipedia. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Note I find it extremely suspicious how readily FFA and his obvious meatpuppet MBurch accepted this proposal, and am a little concerned that they might immediately try to game it as I outlined above. Both users have email enabled, and even if they didn't they are both more active on de.wiki than here, where they would technically not be restricted from discussing The Banner. I'm not going to withdraw my support or anything, but I think it would be a good idea to sanction MBurch as well to prevent him from proxy-hounding in FFA's stead. Note also how the indentation on MBurch's !vote implies he was supporting in direct response to FFA giving his approval.

I also find it concerning that, while FFA's English is terrible and MBurch does seem qualified to improve that one aspect of his articles, the main reason for all the AFDs was notability, and MBurch still has not acknowledged that the topics did not meet our notability criteria (insisting instead that The Banner was motivated solely by a desire to hound FFA), which may indicate a poor understanding of said notability criteria, and I therefore think it would be a good idea if he limited his time to improve FFA P-16's articles to copy-editing, and refrained from mainspacing any drafts himself and !voting in any future AFDs.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Stricken per above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly The Banner is just the front man in a wikipedia process, I certainly would have nominated the same articles for deletion if Banner had not got there first. FFA P-16 has been a bit of a time sink for the aircraft/aviation project, his failure to understand English and the requirements to understand for example that not every aspect of the Swiss Air Force is actually notable enough for an article. Most articles are machine translations from German wikipedia and FFP P-16 has clear competence issues with English language and despite efforts over the years I believe the only remedy is a site ban on English wikipedia. But just to note I would not support any sanction for The Banner and see no reason why they should stand aside, in fact he probably needs some sort of award for enduring endless harrasement from FFA P-16 and others brought over from de wiki. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I still morally support the sentiment in the above comment. I disagree with the third bullet point in Kleuske's opening remark (which I think constitutes a personal attack, as it is made without evidence), and I strongly suspect the fourth bullet point is bull as well (one bad AFD, if it even was that, is not evidence that he has a consistent pattern of not performing due diligence). I just want this mess to be over, and I think The Banner has been rather uncooperative in this process as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cooperation stops (has to) at the edge of Wikipedia rules. It is a fact that FFA P-16 is hardly able to cope with Wikipedias rules even in german. But I got here for MBurch which is another fanatic non learner himself (and the best excuse to hound seems to claim hounding). His engagement is strictly for personal reasons, not for good of Wikipedia. On the contrary: Mburchs unreflected and even agressive absolute support undermines every effort to improve FFA P-16’s capabilities. Mburch is rather part of the problem, not of a solution . --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:7104:7303:6966:8F30 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm... thanks for agreeing with me on just about everything, but... do you have an account? I know it's conceivably possible that someone who only edits from dynamic IPs could !vote in an ANI discussion in good faith, but I haven't seen it happen before, and there's been a whole lot of socktrolling over the last few days. If you are just a dynamic IP could you link to some of your other edits? Sorry, but I'm not a hypocrite -- if a sock agrees with me I'll call them out the same as a sock who's specifically targeting me. (Although honestly, MBurch doesn't seem to have enough of an edit history to have someone logging out to troll them. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a joe-job.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Go for Air14&action=history to decide, whether I’m able to contribute to an article. Another example though for “ungratefulness”. I could actually contribute to some of those articles but won’t, if both of the “twinned” users (sorry, not meant as an offence but to describe a fact) are there.--2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:DEA:4B2E:4D1F:111E (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I see you disputed with FFA back shortly after that page survived AFD. It's still theoretically possible that you could be The Banner, but that wouldn't make any sense as he edited that page logged-in, and would have had no reason to manufacture a false consensus in that situation. Yeah, you've demonstrated adequately enough for me that you're not someone's sock or in any way related to the trolls that have been plaguing this page for the last week or so. Sorry to ask you to explain yourself. I fixed the link for you, anyway. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link (I was in a hurry). This more exact link, [246], reveals another point: FFA P-16 obviously wrote an essay based on his personal knowledge which is (unhappy to say) restricted - a lot to actuality. This takes us back to notabilty. MBurch couldn't be a help there as he hardly sees these problems but fules discussions if there is any critics among: His second contribution to a discussion in 2017 (or his 6th contribution within 4 years at all) was regarded as a personal attack [247]. --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:4519:903E:F3BF:2463 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw a similar case to this recently and there expressed a similar concern to yours above. There was one user consistently trying to enable another user's disruptive behaviour and repeatedly refusing to admit disruption was taking place. The solution was that mentoring was needed, and the user who was denying that disruption was taking place wound up being named as the mentor, which was honestly a pretty disastrous solution there. This is why I think expanding the solution to this problem to tell MBurch that if he engages in any more behaviour that seems disruptive, he will be blocked.

Although, given the NOTHERE nature of his activities, I wouldn't be opposed to a straight-off indef. Foreign-language Wikipedians who only edit English Wikipedia to hound people and get in fights are NOTHERE -- this is how I was once, mistakenly, treated on Japanese Wikipedia, and I was threatened with a block by a good-faith admin who mistakenly thought I was forum-shopping an English Wikipedia dispute there. Similarly to MBurch here, now, basically my entire edit history at that time made me look like I was hounding Juzumaru. The difference is that where in my case it was all a misunderstanding and it was Juzumaru who was at fault, there is no evidence that The Banner has been harassing MBurch on de.wiki and goading him to come over here. In fact the two don't seem to have ever interacted on de.wiki (the EditorInteract tool seems to be failing me here, though, as it claims The Banner has only six edits despite some other evidence to the contrary).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't mean to make you write such a long answer. I can now tell you why I edited once again this morning: I did it just because I was sure that MBurch would add my IP (again) to a sockpuppet-investigation on the german wikipedia. And YES - here he goes: [248]. It' so easy to predict a man on a mission...

Of course it doesn't make sense, to add an IP to a sockpuppet-investigation, if that IP has never even edited in the german wikipedia. But who cares about rules or sense, if one is on a mission... Happy fishing! (In german it is called "fishing for sockpuppets" if you cannot prove a misuse but want to see who it was - of course the rules don't allow that). --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:1462:F8AD:1249:C1BC (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As Hijiri 88 mentioned above is my edit history in the English wikipedia too small to have someone logging out to troll me, but that's of course not true for the German wikipedia. Already those IPs that showed up during the sockpuppet-investigation there where quite suspicious. So maybe you tell us about your long sockpuppet history in the german wikipedia (de:WP:LSWU#Fernrohr) and I guess accidentally you forgot to mention that one account in the newest sockpuppet investigation got already blocked and confirmed by an administrator of the German wikipedia [249]. --MBurch (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

MBurch, this is not the forum to talk about German Wikipedia trolling. If you think the above IP is the same person as that LTA case, that's your business. Everything the IP has said here is fair and accurate. Your behaviour on English Wikipedia has been nothing but disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I really hate to complicate this process, but confirmed, the IP 2A02... is definitely used by our long-term de.sockpuppeteer Fernrohr, proved by his last CU [250], I've blocked his range in de.wp today. - @MBurch, @FFA_P-16: probably it would be a good idea to settle this case friendly. No hounding seems to be involved, the en.guys are well-recognized wikipedians, as you are in de.wp, and any block/ban/probation measure against any of you will only hamper our collaborative work. Just 2cts. --MBq (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MBq: I'm sorry if I'm the one misunderstanding something, but on English Wikipedia (I don't know anything about German Wikipedia's rules on this matter, so I don't know if they are different) CUs don't generally identify an IP with a named account except in extremely exceptional circumstances. If the IP is a de.wiki troll targeting MBurch (alhough, at least on en.wiki, he has been targeting FFA more than MBurch, and only started coming after MBurch after I proposed a BOOMERANG against MBurch for their (pretty atrocious) behaviour in this matter. If the IP's opinion can be disregarded as that of a sock-troll, that's fine, but MBurch's supposedly stellar record on another Wikimedia project (his his block log isn't clean, though, and Google Translate is telling me it can't easily be explained by technicalities or an admin having misread his having been hounded) does not justify his coming to en.wiki specifically to houng one of our editors, or his engaging in pretty gross personal attacks against outside commenters who point this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support part 1 of this; prefer the original proposal above in place of part 2. The problem with this proposal as written is that The Banner hasn't actually done anything to deserve an I-ban; imposing one on him will just be punitive for nothing but the sake of pretending to be even-handed. If the problems identified with The Banner (needs to communicate better, needs to do more WP:BEFORE) are legit and well-evidenced, then the solution is to admonish him to adjust his behavior on those scores. They are not sanctionable problems at this stage. However, it's becoming increasingly dubious that FFA P-16's activity on en.wp is a net gain. I would even support a site-ban, but I think Hijiiri88's one-way i-ban above will deal with the behavioral problem, and "we'll see" whether before forced out of his grudge match has FFA P-16 actually produce content the encyclopedia can use. If end up back here in a few months or a year and that situation hasn't improved, then it's time for an indef so the project can just get back to work without having to AfD unsuitable kinda-articles from the same user again and again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support part 1 only This has actually been my view the whole time, but I didn't think it had a chance until SMcCandlish agreed with me above. The Banner didn't engage in hounding or anything of the sort, and treating him to an IBAN when he doesn't want it is inappropriate. Additionally, I'm now 99% certain FFA and MBurch will coordinate off-wiki to allow FFA to get around the ban. MBurch, who almost never edits en.wiki, didn't just happen across this dispute (FFA almost certainly mentioned it to him at some point -- I don't speak German), nor did the de.wiki admin MBurch clearly invited here within the last few days, who showed up and commented on this dispute clearly without having read anything that didn't involve some unrelated LTA incident on de.wiki. My solution to this problem hasn't received much traction, and without a preventative measure in place I don't see why we should just assume that the same thing that has already been happening will magically stop happening despite us giving them a new motive to do so. I am also a bit concerned that some of FFA's bad articles may still need to be AFDed, and while part 1 would prevent future disruption, part 2 would make fixing the past disruption more difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction: The checkuser said nothing at all about the IP's. Blocking of two EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE IP ranges was clearly a mistake by MBq. Anyone can see that the three 2A02:1206:45AE used here on the English page have nothing to do with those 2a02:1206:45b4 used by Fernrohr in the german wikipedia. I don't blame MBq but want to show what effect false claims have in the wikipedia that we all know.--185.145.111.250 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support part 1 of the proposal. There are also clearly WP:CIR issues at hand, both re: topic notability, sourcing & English proficiency. I've participated in a couple of AfDs on articles created by FFA, and I would agree that the contributor's articles (plus the associated drama) are generally not a net positive for the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• I had a very detailed submission to add, that I worked on for several hours but then lost due to my laptop crashing, but the essence is that FFA should be banned from the English WP altogether because of lack of competence. I would call for his banning from all WPs except for the German because of his habit of shovelling his atrocious English-language text into foreign-language articles (for example Malay; Spanish; Haitian Creole, Hungarian - with a long history of edit-warring when others remove his English-language edits; Polish - also with a history of edit-warring; Norwegian [251] [252] - again with a history of edit-warring; and even Chinese and Russian, but that is outside our jurisdiction - I merely bring it up to demonstrate just how bad he is. Other Users have been complaining about his bad English for years (although you can't see it because he sanitises his Talk page, only keeping material that he believes casts him in a positive light - you have to look through the history); he acknowledges it's bad and continues blithely on his way without a care for how much cleanup work he leaves in his wake because his work to redress the lack of articles on "Swisstopic" is Important (e.g. Swiss Military Tarpaulins). His contributions are not a net improvement to the English WP. YSSYguy (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Evidence

2014

Hijiri88 is correct that evidence should be presented if you accuse someone of hounding. At the very least I would claim that the communication between these two is anything but exemplary. It strts with two nominations

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha (no policy reasons given, result keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dübendorf Air Base (The Banner cites WP:OR and WP:SYNTH withdrawn by the Banner, no delete !votes)

Then comes a spat about the merging of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Puma Display Team in which the banner accuses FFA P-16 of promo, editwarring and a "distinguished career of blowing things way out of proportion".

• [253]

2015

• The Banner removes "irrelavant parts", an edit-war0like interaction between FFA and TB ensues, TB issues a 3RR warning (despite being the other party)
• A day later KZD-85 is nominated by TB (result: keep)
• There is an interaction with another user over overuse of images. TB chimes in with the remark "Come on, FFA! This is not the first time that you are adding irrelevant details or plain fancruft to articles"
• TB accuses FFA of disruptive editing and tells him "Stop with adding fancruft!" Restores his comments on FFA's TP after FFA deleted them. Accuses FFA of WP:NOTHERE and promo.
• TB nominates FFA's userpage for deletion (result Delete). Threatens FFA with AN/I in the process.

2016

• A spat in Draft:RUAG Aviation over bad English. The article has since been draftified
  • An (unambiguous) PA by FFA against TB results in TB issuing a level 2 warning against FFA.

etc.

2017

... (no time) The above may not add up to WP:HOUNDING as defined by the ArbCom, but I get how FFA gets the idea TB is relentlessly on his case. I also acknowledge FFA's English is very poor (grottenschlecht), and TB was right to point that out. That does not absolve TB from WP:CIVIL. These two editors got off on the wrong foot and the situation has deteriorated since. Some solution is urgently called for. Kleuske (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kleuske: You're right that a bunch of that is below the belt, and I would advise User:The Banner to be a lot more careful about rhetoric. Sorry to invoke ArbCom again, but, yeah, WP:Civility is our most important policy, outweighing all the others combined. The highest court in the land doesn't care about GNG, good encyclopedic writing style, verifiability or anything else, so you have to respect C above everything else.

That said: ANI is a bit more free to deal with things in their proper context, and honestly I think Wikipedia would be a better place if we treated civil POV-pushers the same way we treat good editors with short tempers.

Plus, some of the above evidence seems to have been cherry-picked to make The Banner's behaviour look worse than it was. For example, why are only three of the AFDs that are supposedly the whole cause of the problem listed, and those three all keeps? FFA gave what looked like a more random (comprehensive?) sample further up, and 70% of those ended with delete results.

Anyway, whether or not The Banner's behaviour has been sub-par and should perhaps be sanctioned, Kleuske has now formally retracted the "hounding" accusation, but MBurch and FFA still have not. MBurch in particular has provided no evidence, and making accusations about hounding without evidence, particularly after it has been requested, constitutes a personal attack. This, on top of his continued grossly uncivil attacks on me near the top of the thread, leads me to wonder why we are continuing to tolerate his presence here. He has contributed nothing to English Wikipedia (his entire edit history consists of following FFA and TB around, uniformly propping up the former and undermining with the latter). I'm therefore increasingly skeptical that a remedy focused solely on TB and FFA would solve the problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am very pleased with Kleuske's proposal~(to check my work.. se his statement above). I will anyway kep down with writing in The English wikipedia. And if I would like to bring something in, I then use the offer of MBurch to rework the English. I think that if Kleuske has checked it before, there is no direct contact between me and The Banner, no conflict potential. It is only my concern that the articles I written so far get not nominadet for deletion by The Banner. That Kleuske, has an eye on it. Improved, yes, but not to triggerhappy deleteion. What the banner does otherwise .. working on articels about TV channels, restaurants, Beauticontests. No matter what .. I am not interested and is therefore not a conflict potential. I felt pushed by the banner and MBurch shared this feeling and tryed me to help.. it looks like in the english wikipedia are things not the same like in the german wikipedia..so his intervention was done in good faith,because it looked to him like The Banner is buging me. If the proposal of Kleuske wins, there is no reason why I or MBurch would not agree with this. No reason for us to criticize in future.The banner. I hope this will find a peaceful end for all.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@FFA P-16: Nobody wins, here. We all lose. Your behavior towards The Banner is at least as bad as vice versa. I'm not on your side, I'm trying to control the damage. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Kleuske, I just beeing thankful that you brought in something what loocks to me as a good solution. For me its not about to "win".. like I said:I hope this will find a peaceful end for all (also for The Banner).FFA P-16 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: The Banner is a very productive editor and a boon to the project. The last thing on my mind is making him look bad. At least 50% of the blame rests firmly on FFA's shoulders, who has CIR-issues to boot, but I wanted to point out where all the bad blood on FFA's side comes from. Having walked my dog, I do have second thoughts and regret posting it.

TB does have a tendency to go overboard and tends to turn matters into a personal affair (see his reaction to me, above), which has landed him on this notice-board more than once (and please don't make me cite examples). I proposed the IBAN not to spite The Banner, but to get him off FFA's case and let someone else handle it, since this is getting counter productive. Wikipedia can handle a poorly written article about an obscure, possibly non-notable subject in piss poor English much better than a three year drama. Any action, however justified, TB takes involving FFA only adds fuel to the fire. Hence my proposal. Kleuske (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ubi pus, ibi evacua Kleuske (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That being said. I'm getting more and more convinced a site-ban per WP:CIR for FFA P-16 due to a lack of language skills would be justifiable, too. Kleuske (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If he is just translatign German into English, isn't there a tag for that so it can be copyedited? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is definitely not evidence of hounding. A diff-pile twice this large, of genuinely problematic behavior, all from the last month or so might be. What I see here is:

  2014, too long ago for consideration, TB wasn't fully up to speed on AfD procedures yet, like many noobs (and even old hands who don't do AfD much).

  2015: TB, like other productive editors, knows what WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy is, and removes unencyclopedic cruft from articles. He still might not have been clear on what makes a good AfD candidate, but then again this is also cherry-picked evidence, and maybe by this point most of his selections were successfully AfD. When people add cruft, he objects. The tone and personalization weren't a good idea, but are far short of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA violations. Didn't seem clear on WP:USERTALK, but restoring a deleted talk post, one time, is not a big deal. Raising WP:PROMO concerns, if there seems to be a pattern, isn't the wrong thing to do. Raising NOTHERE ones is more difficult to do without being a WP:JERK, but we do have that essay for a reason and people are allowed to cite it. (I've done so twice in the last few days, to editors who are clearly here for the right reasons overall, but have been engaging, in a "temporary but too extended" way, in personal disputation that has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. I find that such minor troutings are often effective. It never actually hurts anyone to remind people that this is an encyclopedia project, not a social networking site or a sport-debate webboard.) The fact that three editors here (at least) are considering a site-ban for FFA_P-16 on WP:COMPETENCE grounds is at least as strong a finger to point as TB mentioning NOTHERE, and it speaks to many of the same concerns.

  2016: Trying to address terrible article quality is normal and desirable. Successfully getting a WP:POLEMIC deleted is also normal and desirable.

  So, I think we're done here, and The Banner is definitely not going to be pilloried in the stocks, just asked to communicate less testily, to jump to fewer conclusions, and to review policies and procedures and follow them a little more closely, both with regard to how AFD is properly done, and what user talk page etiquette is. I think we've probably all committed worse wiki-sins than these, without sanctions, at some point. PS: If you're going to try to diff out an alleged pattern, you need to start with recent, relevant material, not stuff from years go that no one cares about and which is unlikely to represent current behavior or level of wiki-savvy.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit tells you about the problem here: [254] Funny story but simply not encyclopedic. How many years do you grant an author to learn?--185.145.111.250 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Funny though how IP's appear to revert .... [255]. It's all too predictable. And why is it so predicable? Because it never changes. After strolling around I just found this - didn't know it until now. But if you look at what's on FFA P-16's page now; .... it hasn't changed a lot, that collection, has it? (does FFA P-16 even explicitly explain [256] not to be willing to follow the rules?)--185.145.111.250 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary proposal: 6-month probation for MBurch

In light of the behaviour displayed in this thread and over the last several months, I propose a final warning for MBurch (talk · contribs). If, during the next six months, he engages in behaviour that could reasonably be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING, appears to be acting as a proxy to allow FFA to violate the above-proposed IBAN, or otherwise behaves in an uncivil manner, he may be blocked from editing English Wikipedia by any admin without further warning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

I didn't mean to attack you at all, I just believe you're comments were not much helpful. In my personal opinion you increased the conflict while others tried to find a solution in short, brief words. Fact is I signed up 21th of November 2010, I have globally over 25'000 contributions mostly in German Wikipedia, but a few on commons, wikidata and others, too [257]. --MBurch (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Responded to the above duplicated comment above, where it belongs. This proposal has nothing to do with MBurch's global contributions, and is not specifically about his personal attacks against me. I would have made basically the same proposal based on his hounding of The Banner and his wikilawyerish attempts to get me in trouble (blocked?) for "calling him a sockpuppet" (something I never did) by pinging the admin who unblocked him. And then, later, inviting in a German Wikipedia with no connection to this case just because of an off-topic rabbit-hole he had dragged us down, and apparently, somehow, convincing the de.wiki editor in question that the main issue here was a non-issue requiring no action. MBurch, if you want to respond to my proposal on its merits, please do so outside of this collapse template. If you continue to post off-topic commentary in this subsection I will take it as a deliberate attempt to filibuster the proposal by preventing discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC) (edited 21:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC) )

• Support, along with the above steps. All three parties should be addressed, but as to the actual issues (and severity thereof) they present. MBurch's hands are hardly clean in this matter, even if he's less central to the problems than FFA P-16.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support A skim through the ANI leads me to mostly the same conclusion. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- such behaviour is not helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Need an administrative assessment on this thread please

This thread has some polls/surveys and needs an administrative close. Softlavender (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

<sound of crickets chirping> EEng 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

<frogs croak and fireflies flit as small woodland creatures cavort. somewhere in the distance a coyote's howl echoes off the valley walls> EEng 07:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, there don't seem to be too many editors commenting on the proposed sanctions... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

<The seas rise and humanity perishes. Deep inside a hollowed-out mountain, powered by their atomic generators, Wikipedia's servers whirr and hum and blink...> EEng 23:32, 27 May 2017 (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:Hesselp

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 situation with Hesselp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the page Series (mathematics) and the talk page Talk:Series (mathematics). He has been edit-warring to include his rewrite of the article [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263]. Although not at the moment above 3RR, the above is clear indication of edit warring, being reverted by four different editors. He was warned against edit warring, yet persists. Other editors have attempted to engage him at Talk:Series (mathematics), but attempts to resolve the dispute amicably are met with walls of antagonistic rambling text: [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], among others. We have given up on trying to interact with this user, in the spirit of WP:DENY (the above posts strongly suggest trolling). But I believe the time has come for this disruption to be put to an end administratively. (Pinging other involved editors: @Hesselp:, @D.Lazard:, @MrOllie:, @Wcherowi:.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there was some edit warring involving this user going on at the Dutch version of the article. @The Banner:, could you tell us if those issues were similar to what we're seeing here? - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I had no involvement in this article and I want to keep it that way. But on the Dutch version is was a long story of editwars, WP:TLDR, dismissing arguments brought in by others, endless edit-suggestions. The Banner talk 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the edit history shows a long history of contentious additions, and reverts by other editors there. The talk page is dominated by endless discussions. Without knowing Dutch, I would suggest that this appears to be a similar pattern. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Slo-mo EW is still EW. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this should be placed on WP:AN3, this is a clear edit war. —JJBers 13:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is edit war on the article pages (English and Dutch) and disruptive edits on the talk pages (in both languages). Apparently this user knows the 3RR rule: Generally he waits more than 24 hours before a new revert, and he stops (for a while) edit warring after 3 reverts. As, usually, WP:AN3 actions consists in short blocks (for a few days), this would be not efficient here, as his disrupting edits could restart immediately after the end of the block. D.Lazard (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Today he has done 3 reverts. D.Lazard (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• I certainly feel like I'm involved with an edit war that I see no way of stopping. This editor is tenacious and smart enough to play the system. He is so committed to his POV that he won't even consider the possibility that he may be taking an extreme position that others would reject.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Playing the system is a blockable offense. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Reaction by Hesselp.   I haven't done anything else than concentrate on the best way - at the level of mainstream Wikipedia readers - to describe the meanings (plural) of the technical/mathematical term "series" in mathematical texts. A main point is that the meaning of "convergent series" can be explained easily by interpreting this words as "summable sequence". This is not at all new, see the number of google-hits on "summable sequence" and "summable sequences". The same point is shown in Calculus by M. Spivak (editions 1968-2008).   To which extend it is reasonable to characterize my posts on Talk page as "rambling antagonistic text", I leave to decide by other judges.
@Slawomir Bialy: my edit is not a "rewrite of the article", it can be seen as a rewrite of 1/6 of the article.
@MrOllie: Yes, I tried about the same on Dutch Wikipedia, with partial success.
@Wcherowi: - (on your newest 'edit summary') Using  'no consensus'  without ANY discussion on the merits of the content of a text/edit, is misusing this word.  - 40 000 hits on 'summable sequence(s)' does NOT point to an "extreme position".   - Tell me at least, which aspect(s) in the edit you see as 'extreme', it's certainly by far not the complete text.
@L3X1.   I don't understand what you mean, please explain. -- Hesselp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesselp (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:GAME: Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view.. Continously reverting and warring with other editors, even if done over a long period of time, still counts as edit warring. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The merits of the were discussed or otherwise incorporated into the article. Here are some diffs (among others): [269], [270], [271]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The disruption continues: he pasted this ANI thread into the talk page of the article, in apparent violation of the talk page guidelines, this addition was reverted by one editor, then Hesselp restored it; it was removed by a different editor who pointed out that talk pages are for discussing article improvements rather than soapboxing, it was restored again by Hesselp. Does it matter whether this is good faith editing or simple trolling/vandalism? The editor in question clearly continues to be disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I note that, regretfully, Hesselp is a WP:SPA. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

SPA-for-bad or SPA-for-good? I don't understand your comment, as per SPA, thats not even a teeeeerrible thing to be. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, we are at ANI about this user's aggressive behavior, are we not? (With disruptive crossover activity on the nl.wikipedia.) SPA is certainly not a good thing in that context. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"...editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus..." — this is the case, and this is why I wrote "regretfully". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Promotional"?   Yes!  I promote improvements in the rather messy [272] [273] present text.
"Advocating"?   Yes!  By presenting detailed arguments on Talk page.
"Non-neutral"??   Please comment (on Talk page) in which line(s) in this edit you see a non-neutral statement approach (after glancing through the list of 32 'definitions' in [274]). --Hesselp (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right mathematically; and your suggestion could be accepted on a professional mathematical encyclopedia (such as Springer EoM). However, you fail to take seriously the very first objection by McKay on that talk page (of 02:42, 20 January 2016): articles like this are supposed to talk to as general an audience as possible and not just to mathematicians. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Mathematically right" - thank you!   From your objection 'non-neutral' you changed over to 'too-high-level'. I cannot see myself why the alternative text can be considered as more difficult than the present one. So please, comment (on Talk page) in which line(s) in this edit you see hard points. Maybe they can be improved / worded in an easier way.   Is the introduction of the label 'summable sequence' too difficult to be understandable by a general audience? -- Hesselp (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried engaging on the article talk page but got nowhere fast. I'm getting strong indications of WP:TE and WP:IDHT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The facts, in short:   David Eppstein was 'baffled' (Talk page 22:01, 8 May 2017) by my incomprehension regarding the true nature of "expressions" and "infinite expressions" (being the central key-term in the definition of 'series').  After asking for the difference between finite and infinite expressions (09:38, 9 May, again 08:44, 10 May), the answer (14:36 and 15:43) was unclear to me, so I made my question more concrete (points A-E, 18:49, 10 May).  Reaction by David Eppstein: "...no more interaction with you", "I see your edits as tendentious and disruptive"  and some more not very positive remarks. -- Hesselp (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hesselp's version of series (mathematics) begins by "In mathematics (calculus), the word series is primarily used as adjective ...". This is not only WP:OR but also blatantly wrong: It suffices to look at any modern textbook of calculus to know that "series" is primarily used in mathematics as a noun. Note also that, although series are studied in most textbooks of calculus the only source for Hesselp's lead is about 150 years old (and also misunderstood). The remainder of Hesselp's version of the article continues in the same style and consists only of Hesselp's own inventions, beliefs and/or misinterpretation of the rare source that he produces. D.Lazard (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments on D.Lazard's post 23:35, 10 May 2017 :
On "..any modern textbook.." :   For a survey of attempts to define 'series', see the list '32 attempts' in this post. The 32 different wordings can be combined to a handful of really different content. Most of the about 80 authors say that a series IS an expression, but leave it to the reader to find out what's the character of the mathematical object, denoted (described, referred to) by this expression.  The same is the case with the 'definition' in the present version of the article; implying the self-referring sentence:  A series is an expression of the form  ..+..+..+  ···  denoting a series.
And left to the reader as well is the question of how to interprete the label "convergent series". A convergent expression seems to be nonsense, but without any idea about the content of the expression, it's not easy to understand what's really denoted by this label.

In some sources (Spivak, Buck, Dijksterhuis, Van Rooij, Cauchy, Gauss) can be found more explicitely how to interprete the usual wordings. Making it possible to see the connection between the traditional - self-referring - wordings in most books on calculus, and the way how the label 'series' is used by mathematicians in practice.
Only a minimal change in interpretation is needed.  That is: don't say: 'series'  IS the expression  ..+..+..+  ···   itself,  but say: 'series' is used to label a certain TYPE OF expression.  The type, constituted by a summation symbol (the sigma-sign, or the repeated pluses and end-dots) combined with the name of a sequence.
This is what should be an improvement of the article, with its consequences in the wording of the remaining standard content. Helping the reader to grab the meaning of the on-first-site strange combination 'convergent series' (= convergent expression).

Original Research ?:   The explanation of the meaning of 'convergent series' - as being nothing else as summable sequence - is the very first statement in chapter 'Series' in Michael Spivak's well known "Calculus".  Already for half a century: 1st ed. 1967, 4th ed. 2008.  See More precise terminology 21:37, 9 May 2017

"The only source...."?   No, all 80 rather modern calculus books in the list in this post, 20:28, 8 May 2017 served as sources. And of the 19th century sources are mentioned earlier: Cauchy, Susler, Itzigsohn, Gauss, Von Mangoldt.   Why doesn’t D.Lazard mentions which one of this five he has studied, and which point in it I should have misunderstood?

The remainder of Hesselp's version....  Without concrete examples, I can't comment on D.Lazard's last sentence.  Is it the conclusion of everyone who have read this edit? -- Hesselp (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Mathematically right", yes... but be careful. Yes, a series is a sequence. But also a (finite) word is a (finite) sequence. And a (formal) polynomial is a (finite) sequence. And a formal power series is a (infinite) sequence. And a stack is a (finite) sequence. And a queue is. And a file is a (finite) sequence (be it a movie in mp4 format, a graphics in jpeg format, or whatever). All this is mathematically right in the same sense. But this truth should be used with due care. A developer knows the implementation details; a user often does not (and need not). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed a copy of this ANI thread from the article talk page, which Hesselp had restored [275] after another user removed them today [276]. It would be helpful for an uninvolved admin to look into the editing patterns. The ANI thread had previously been copied on 5-8 [277] and removed then. mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that the content has now been restored again [278]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with CBM that an action by an uninvolved administrator is needed, I suggest a permanent ban. In fact, Hesselp has shown many times that he is unable or unwilling to have a constructive discussion. The new edit war quoted by CBM is a new example. It should be noted that the object of this edit war (in which I am not involved) is presented as an answer to my above post of 10 May 2017. In this alleged answer, the main point of my post (the fact that "series" is not an adjective) is not discussed. Instead, he pretends discussing the present content of the article, but, in fact he discusses formulations that never appeared in the article and are invented by him. For example "The same is the case with the 'definition' in the present version of the article; implying the self-referring sentence:  A series is an expression of the form  ..+..+..+  ···  denoting a series. This seems a quote, but the word "denoting" does not appear in the article. This method of changing the wording of the content that he pretends discussing is systematic. This strongly suggests a bad faith; in any case it is definitively impossible to have a constructive discussion with this editor. Therefore, a permanent ban seems the only acceptable solution. D.Lazard (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Indented my comment on two copied sentences (D.Lazard, 21:18, 12 May 2017); his two examples are strong enough for a 'permanent ban' ?

D.Lazard: In this alleged answer, the main point of my post (the fact that "series" is not an adjective) is not discussed.
      Hesselp: By "main point"  is referred to:
      "Hesselp's version of series (mathematics) begins by "In mathematics (calculus), the word series is primarily used
        as adjective ...". This is not only WP:OR but also blatantly wrong:"
      There is some distance between   "series" is (not) an adjective   and   the word series is primarily used as adjective.
      This "primarily used as" is what I try to illustrate in all my posts.

D.Lazard: For example "The same is the case with the 'definition' in the present version of the article; implying the self-referring sentence:  A series is an expression of the form  ..+..+..+  ···  denoting a series. This seems a quote, but the word "denoting" does not appear in the article.
      Hesselp: Current article, sentence 8:  "Such a series is represented (or denoted) by an expression... ".
      Reading backwards: "The expression ... denotes (or: is denoting) a series." -- Hesselp (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hesselp is now up to six attempts to copy and paste this whole discussion from ANI into Talk:Series (mathematics). He has already long since been warned about edit warring, and specifically not to do this. A block might be warranted, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have copied parts of this ANI thread to Talk:Series (mathematics), because I thought (and think) that this parts contain relevant information for users involved in improving the Series article.   Which rule I have broken by doing this? -- Hesselp (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:MULTI, for a start. For that matter, your attempt to argue the content issue here is problematic for the same reason. Issues of how to properly define series should be discussed only on Talk:Series (mathematics), not here. Issues of your problematic behavior should be discussed here, not moved to the article talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop. Hesselp, just because others have stopped responding to your WP:IDHT posts on the talk page does not mean that there is not solid consensus against the changes you want to make to the talk page. No one is under any obligation to respond to you further. Since you have now successfully closed down any further discussion on the edits you want to make, the next stop would be an RfC. But if you choose to go that route, you should not abuse the RfC process the way you have abused the discussion page, because that would be further evidence of disruptive editing. Given that you are an WP:SPA, I strongly believe that the community consensus for further disruption will be an indefinite block. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Restored this thread after it was inappropriately archived by an inexperienced editor. Softlavender (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hesselp recently wrote (on a sandbox page where he apparently keeps backups of his copy-and-paste walls of text): "Caused by personal circumstances I've to tell that I leave by now Wikipedia for at least a couple of weeks." I note that there has been no apology, no acknowledgement of misbehavior, and no promise not to start right back up with the same problematic behavior once he returns. But unless we agree to take action now (for instance, by a topic ban on Series (mathematics), its talk page, and related articles) nothing will happen, and this thread will be archived and forgotten by the time he returns. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Proposing 6-month topic ban on Series (mathematics). Hesselp's history doesn't augur well for ever becoming a productive editor, but miracles do happen. Given that the disruption has been pretty much specific to this one article, and monomania is common in mathematics, I'm not suggesting one of those cliched "broadly construed" bans. Pinging (I think) all participants here: Sławomir Biały David Eppstein, Softlavender, D.Lazard, CBM, Tsirel, L3X1, Hesselp. EEng 00:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per EEng. having refreshed myself to the events that have happened since my above comments, I believe this is the best course of action, as opposed to a block. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I agree, a block is too much at this point, but we need to do something and this should help. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support 6-month topic ban on Series (mathematics) and its talk page. Hesselp is much too bold, but hopefully not a crank. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Either he will not respect the ban, and changing to a permanent ban will be easy, or he will give up with his disruptive edits. The tone of some posts and edit summaries suggests that he is unable to accept that he may be wrong, and this implies that, if he want to come back here, he will not be able to wait for that. D.Lazard (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Restoring non-closed thread. D.Lazard (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see much indication that he sees anything objectionable about his behavior. In that case, the unconstructive time-wasting and edit-warring will likely continue at Series (mathematics) and its discussion page. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2017 (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:JJMC89 bot

The JJMC89 bot is malfunctioning and wrongly deleting Fair Use graphics files for which a valid Fair Use Rationale has been provided. This in turn triggers another bot to nominate them for Speedy Deletion as "orphans." The bot operator has been notified but claims that nothing is wrong with his bot and refuses to shut it down. This is a massive problem in the making and fast Administrative action is called for. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

See User talk:JJMC89 for evidence that multiple users are being affected and complaining about this, with some sort of ham-handed case-by-case "fixing" touted as the solution for a defective bot design that is creating automated chaos — I have five affected files so far myself, alone. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that, per WP:FUR, "The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale". This is being interpreted by the bot (and, I think, by most humans working with WP:NFCC) to mean the specific article name must be linked in the FUR. In most of these cases, the uploader has either included the article name in the FUR (but not linked as an article), or there is a typo in the article link, or the linked page is a redirect to the correct article, rather than the article itself. There is some confusion that maybe the bot is insisting that a template be used, but it does not look like that's the problem, it's the lack of a precise article link. This is easily parsed and fixed by a human, but this bot is having trouble.

It seems suboptimal to automatically remove the image from the article; for such a common error, a less drastic solution is warranted. Particularly since a separate bot efficiently tags NFCC images not used in articles for deletion, meaining a simply typo/unlinked article can result in removal of the image from the article and it's subsequent deletion. Perhaps a better solution is to list images (1) tagged as Fair Use AND (2) used in an article BUT (3) without that article linked in the FUR somewhere, and have a human review and fix the easy ones. Or improve the parsing skills of the bot to figure out when there's a minor error and have it fail more gracefully. It would certainly cause less heartburn for uploaders, and therefore for the bot owner too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: The bot doesn't only check for links, it still detects the FUR even if it isn't linked, as long as the text on the image page uses the same title as the article it is being used on. Pppery 23:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, note that the bot hasn't run in 5 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There is an auto-generated link to the article in which the fair use file is being used on the same rights page! Why should it be necessary to duplicate an auto-generated file (which satisfies the requirement that linkage be made)? Carrite (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(not necessarily defending this, just explaining) Since it's auto-generated, it would be there whether or not there was an FUR specifically for that article. The bot appears to be trying to find files marked as fair use, but without an adequate rationale (one requirement of which appears to be a link to the article in the FUR itself). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Given that its most recent tagging before its last run stopped was yet another questionable tagging (this one was arguably justifiable but at the very least warranted discussion, and I very much doubt the image in question is even copyrightable in the first place), I've indeffed the bot. This is explicitly "indefinite not infinite", and I authorize anyone to unblock once JJMC89 has fixed the problem. ‑ Iridescent 22:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Undoing the damage Given that this bot marked about 77 images as non-fair use as shown here, the changes need to be reversed. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The bot hadn't edited in ~8 hours when it was blocked, and there is a way to disable individual tasks on its userpage; therefore, the block was unnecessary. That aside, I have yet to see an edit that wasn't correct at the time of the edit. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.^WP:NFCC#10c For all of the edits presented on my talk page dealing with image removal, the file description page did not have a link to the article or contain the title (name) of the article in the wikitext. For Iridescent's example, a bot cannot tell if an image is incorrectly tagged as non-free. Carrite, the image usage links cannot satisfy WP:NFCC#10c since they are not part of the FUR (and would make its wording to require the name or link unnecessary). — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

While you are correct that the name of the article needs to be in the rationale, the bot should be aware of "close matches" which a human editor would clearly recognize as something that could be easily fixed; this is something we expected of BetaCommand's bots in the past. The combination of outright image remove and not having this close match is problematic. If the bot only warned about the rational and then removed after 7 days, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

When I was running a bot to enforce this, the standard I used was that the image had to mention the name of the article (I think I made this case-insensitive), or that it had to link to the article, or that a link on the image page could be used to reach the article through some combination of redirects and disambiguation pages. --Carnildo (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Block review

• Was there really a need to block the bot as a whole? If you visit the bot's userpage, you would see that you can edit one page to disable that function. SQL^{Query me!} 02:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The bot's userpage isn't really that clear, and takes a while to decode what you're supposed to do. I can see why Iri would shut off the bot, using the big button specifically inviting him to do so if the bot was causing problems. Still, since JJMC89 has disabled that task (see here, and to be super safe I double-disabled it (see here), I've unblocked the bot so it can do its other non-controversial tasks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, yeah. Hey Iri, you were pretty clear above you were cool with an unblock if the issue was resolved, but a classier admin than me would have courtesy pinged you that they'd unblocked anyway. Always striving to be classier, I'll do that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Stay classy, AN/I  ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• The first block of text on that page says "Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it." and links the block rather than link to any one page, like other bots. It certainly isn't clear that there is any other way to stop the bot at first glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  Well, unless you read the next few lines down, yeah - fair point. SQL^{Query me!} 04:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood - repeated disruptive editing from multiple IPs

Has been going on for past two days - List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Edits originate from 73.0.98.123 and an IP range at 2601:584:4500:2AE0. WP policies have been referenced in edit summaries & multiple editors have reverted the improper additions to the list. Farolif (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably best handled via WP:RPP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I had considered that to begin with, but there are valid edits coming from other IP's. Meanwhile, this sockpuppet continues to war with myself & other editors without providing sources for his new criteria (ie - extending the cutoff to 1965). Farolif (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Would be worth it in the short-term, IMO. Maybe protect for 1 week. Good IP editors can use the talkpage. Maybe it's half-term where the sock is and they're bored. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats by Jdm7dv

Jdm7dv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Jonathan Moore (engineer) and was nominated for speedy deletion. After repeated removals and warnings, Jdm7dv posted here: "Onel5969 I ham a historical figure and my editor needs to make edits to my article this is not self promotion. One more threat and the police will be notified." I redacted the threat and warned him about legal threats, but he restored the threat. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Bears continued watching.

Tigers stopped watching. EEng

Jdm7dv was blocked, per legal threat, and unblocked by me, when it was removed. Bears continued watching.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird threats against Widefox

I can't quite tell what this is all about, but it looks threatening. Maybe it should be oversighted? Bri (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 18:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The personal information is available on Widefox's userpage. Good block/delete regardless. -- John Reaves 18:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is User:Styron111 who has been been globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites[279]. The SPI is here [280]. Yes, block and delete on sight. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing of Dear John (U.S. TV series)

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.

---

Alpha123321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.226.0.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Dear John (U.S. TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On 12 April 2017, Alpha123321 removed the protected page template that Kelapstick had set on 31 March. The page protection was a response to a series of unconstructive edits by 72.226.0.42. Alpha123321 has reverted every change made by another editor since 3 May.

• 8 May: Asked the user to voice their rationale
• 14 May: Warning posted
• 21 May: Most recent incident

—Ringbang (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My one comment on this is that User:Alpha123321's do not appear to be constructive (and the removal of the {{ubl}} templates is indicative of some disruptive editing that is seen more generally in TV series articles...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Alpha123321 has now clearly edit-warred at Dear John (U.S. TV series) – I would suggest a block is in order, esp. if Alpha123321 reverts even one more time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked Alpha123321 for blatant edit warring at that article. I have to wonder if their history of disruption might justify escalating to an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block. clpo13_(talk) 06:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm suspicious that IpswichFan and Alpha123321 might be the same person. See this edit that occurred right in he middle of the disruption caused by Alpha123321 - why would he do this? And what's the probability that this is a coincidence? My gut says that it's low. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone done a checkuser? —Ringbang (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

They're  Unrelated. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2017 (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.

Paris1127 twists the History of various countries.

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:Paris1127 This user twists the history of sri lanka by using false information in wikipedia for example, in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_involving_the_United_Kingdom the first kandyan war was won by the kandyan kingdom not british, yet he changed it to british won the war, which is not true, and I even posted a reference to my claim. so please check this, and also I request to go through his submissions made in wikipedia to check the validity of his posts, and take necessary actions against him. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceylonpedia (talk • contribs) 07:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ceylonpedia:

1. This is a content dispute, not an administrative matter. If you disagree with another editor then explain civilly to her or him why, and be prepared to discuss the issues with a view to trying to reach consensus. The other editor has Answered your point on the article talk page: respond there if you have any answer to give.
2. The "reference" that you posted was a link to the Wikipedia article in question. Both the circularity of the reference and the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source make this of no value at all as a reference.
3. When you edited this page there was a large orange notice at the top which said, in large bold print, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Please make sure that if you ever start a discussion here again you heed that instruction. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2017 (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.

Excessive nominations of Pakistani schools for AfD from User:Greenbörg

There are approximately 75 schools in Pakistan nominated for AfD today by User:Greenbörg, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Public College Kakul Campus. This clogs the AfD process and is in direct opposition to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which says "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations."

I'm not necessarily opposed to deleting these articles, I am opposed to having this many show up on the same day in the AfD process. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ouch. Yeah, that's clearly very excessive. High schools and colleges are generally considered to be notable, and while that's not a rule, it is, obviously, a reason not to overwhelm AfD with indiscriminate and excessive nominations of high schools and colleges with a copied and pasted generic statement. @Greenbörg:—care to offer any explanation for this? Swarm ♠ 19:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Also, the speed at which they're creating AfDs makes it clear that they're not actually attempting to find out whether an institution is notable, the nominations are being rapidly done via Twinkle and really are indiscriminate. Swarm ♠ 19:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There was clearly no attention paid to WP:BEFORE here. A couple of the subjects probably do warrant deletion. Several are demonstrably and clearly notable with a cursory search, and many (as might be expected) are going to require some examination of sources that aren't immediately evident. But regardless of the individual merits, this is a mess. I wouldn't be sad if an admin opted to procedural-close the lot of them, although I imagine someone would grumble that the 7 day timer is sacred... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed these and this is very excessive. It seems like WP:BEFORE isn't being followed and that the editor is trying to make a point. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• A few things here: the schools RFC had other points beyond adding SCHOOLOUTCOMES to ATA. One of the points in the nutshell was to avoid flooding AfD. Another argument that the close mentioned was particularly strong for those arguing "support" was the systemic bias point (because if we're honest, most schools brought to AfD are from South Asia.) Finally, as was brought up by editors in the discussion WP:FAIT would seem to prevent actions like sending 75 Pakistani educational institutions to AfD. I'm fine with having discussions about secondary schools on a case-by-case basis, and even though I almost always end up as keep, I do consider the option for deletion in each case. Going through 75 AfDs to do this would be next to impossible and overwhelms the community's ability to process similar AfD nominations. These should be procedurally closed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• These should be procedurally closed and the nominator admonished. A nomination spree like this would be inappropriate for any subject, but the close of the "schools" RFC specifically forbade excessive nominations and instructed those bringing articles about schools to AfD to go above and beyond BEFORE. Also, in circumstances where related articles are nominated for deletion with similar or identical rationales, the nominations should be bundled (see WP:MULTIAFD). Rebbing 23:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, this is not their first such incident. Last year they randomly moved a host of Pakistan cricket articles against convention and consensus, they were warned many times (on their talk page and at WT:CRIC) . I left a final warning on their talk page after which they stopped. But given this repetition of "mass action" behavior with alarming regularity, some sort of sanction of limiting any such activity to not more than 1-3 articles per day with a cap of 5-6 per week or something similar is needed. —SpacemanSpiff 09:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Not only excessive AfD nominations, sometimes more than one per minute, but clearly false statements about the subject institutions by claiming they are "running illegally." Quick search found at least one has Higher Education Commission of Pakistan recognition. Zero attention to WP:BEFORE, quite the opposite with demonstrably baseless misinformation. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not only excessive AfD nominations, but Greenbörg has moved over 500 articles in the last 12 months, sometimes at a speed of up to 10 a minute - and this appears to be basically all they do on Wikipedia. A large number (I haven't checked them all), while not illegitimate, are completely unnecessary. I think this editor has a predilection for rapid, unnecessary editing. Greenbörg was grandfathered into the New Page Reviewer group; I have removed the account from that group. I will leave it to other participants in this discussion to decide what other action, if any, should be taken. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Kudpung, that was the reason I'd given a final warning in May 2016 as regards moves (in addition to the many he received prior to that), but it appears to have had no effect at all on this person's behavior. This is all nothing more than "well meaning disruption", it's still disruption and we're probably better off just preventing him from doing the same action on more than one article per week or some such thing. —SpacemanSpiff 03:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's why I said I'll leave the decision to the rest of the participants. Meanwhile, I've started cleaning up but to do it properly and even using the admin script, this will take two to three hours. We need help. The closing rationale I'm using for most of them is The result was keep. Procedural Keep: excessive nominations of colleges/high schools contrary to consensus. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Could access be removed to Twinkle and any other tools that are facilitating the rapid, disruptive edits? Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there are any ways access to Twinkle, or even moving pages can be technically limited. It could be easily possible to make the AfD and other deletion tags only accessible to accredited New Page Reviewers, but the community's insistence in October that all newbies and inexperienced users continue to be allowed access to some of the most intellectually demanding maintenance features of the site prevented any improvement. We got consensus to create a special user group to operate the New Pages Feed and its Curation Tools but of course it had no overall effect on the poor quality of New Page Patrolling by others through Twinkle. This is a classic example of why stricter controls are now required - authorised New Page Reviewers are far less likely to make errors but even the 400+ of them can't keep the backlog down. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff:I knew, I have done many disruptive moves violating the established policies which I was not aware of at that time. After 2 years I am a better editor than I was 2 years back. Now, I am going to remain abstain from moving pages again. I will never move a page again without discussion. Please also point out other blunders I'm doing. Greenbörg (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• There is a very apologetic message on my talk page to which I have replied:

Thank you for your candid message Greenbörg. However, I think you should stay well away from all moves and deletion process and anything that concerns the processing of new articles. I recommend you concentrate on finding sources for articles and perhaps reviewing Recent Changes and helping to combat vandalism. If you don't stop what you have been doing, there is a very strong chance that the community will take measures to limit your editing or even stop you editing altogether.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Newimpartial

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 someone mind imposing a WP:CIR block on User:Newimpartial? This user's repeatedly declining userspace spam tags (see User:Bubba1987/Kyle Irion, User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx, and User:Rabbithatch/Gina Phillips), getting past the point of WP:STICK, and complaining at my talk that these aren't spam when I delete them (see [281] and [282]), and when I gave a final warning, he conveniently decided to file a DRV for Shy Kidx, which means that I can't block him. Comments by other users at his talk demonstrate that he doesn't understand how we apply multiple speedy deletion criteria. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have only declined userspace spam tags on articles which were not unambiguous spam, which is the SD policy as I understand it. Userspace deletions which are ambiguous are supposed to be discussed at MfD, but a couple of users (Legacypac, who I observe has a history in this area, and DGG) have been applying SD tags over-generously to User-space and Draft articles. MY DRV was not in any way a WP:GAME - it came from my legitimate frustration at having userspace articles SDed while they are being discussed either in their Talk pages or on MfD. The editors/admins who have had issues with my behaviour all seem not to accept the WP:CONSENSUS expressed in WP:STALE about when, and how, User- and Draft- space articles are to be deleted.Newimpartial (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, only administrators can decline speedy deletion requests. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline, sure, but there isn't a policy against non-administrators removing the tags, is there? The tag itself only says that the creator/editor of the article can't remove it, not that it can only be touched by administrators. But I am here to learn. Newimpartial (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That ties in with declining and falls under the same thing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone apart from the article creator can decline a speedy deletion nomination by removing the tag, not just admins. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I noticed the user at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alternative addicts and while I have not examined the situation sufficiently to know if a block is needed, the misguided attempts to impede spam removal are disruptive and a final warning should be issued. Posting Who is "we", white man? :) at the link I gave indicates either trolling or an inability to know when flippancy is appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Johnuniq. I was not trolling; that was a misguided attempt to lighten the mood.

By the way, this <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Annejacqueline/Yasmine_modestine&curid=54155836&diff=782640813&oldid=782635737> is another example of the "we" I was querying with my joke. I really don't know who that "we" is.Newimpartial (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My good-faith understanding of WP:STALE is that there is WP:CONSENSUS not to delete userspace and draft-space drafts for WP:N or for being old; the users whose "spam removal" I have "impeded" seem not to agree with that WP:CONSENSUS. If people think I am out of line in my response to some SD requests, then I am willing to learn, but it really looks to me as though Legacypac and DGG are outsdide of WP:CONSENSUS on the matter of userspace deletions. Newimpartial (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Along with all the Admins who are outside consensus when they deleted all the crap I speedied over the last few hours? 22:14 (Deletion log)‎ . . [Onel5969‎; JamesBWatson‎; DGG‎; 1a16‎; Zzuuzz‎ (2×); Iridescent‎ (2×);Anthony Bradbury‎ (2×); Dlohcierekim‎ (3×); CactusWriter‎ (9×); Jimfbleak‎ (11×); Fastily‎ (15×);Nyttend‎ (21×); Athaenara‎ (23×); RHaworth‎ (33×)] Now he posting undelete requests and starting DRVs on the deletions.

Sorry but I've had enough of this editor running around fighting legit spam fighting. He lacks a WP:CLUE. Topic Ban him already. Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I stalk Primefac's talk page and ran into this editor over deletion of an article that was mostly copyvio. They objected to the G12 tag, but are now apparently upset that it was deleted as G11 instead. I caught a glance at the article before it was deleted and it was horribly promo and clear copyvio. This makes me very concerned about this editor's ability to determine what is and isn't appropriate content for an encyclopedia. They've had numerous editors trying to work with them (some less polite than others), and just don't seem to be getting the message. I hesitate to support it, but perhaps a topic ban until they understand policies and guidelines better might be the best option? Waggie (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No understanding of prohibited user names [283] Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, I can do a voluntary (or involuntary) ban on Deletion discussions until I get to 1,000 unreverted mainspace edits, or something.

What I understood, though, is that "what is and isn't appropriate content for an encyclopedia" wasn't supposed to be the criterion for deletion of userspace and draftspace entries - I had understood that per WP:CONSENSUS, draftspace and userspace were supposed to be more permissive, as in the criteria set out in WP:STALE which seem to be widely ignored when admins approve CSD nominations.

Anyway, I can sit this one out if that's the will of the room. There was certainly nothing but good faith on my part in my MfD participation. Newimpartial (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Per what consensus, and where (with links), does it say we're supposed to keep blatantly promo and copyvio drafts or force them into the already over-burdened MfD process? The "G" criteria of CSD can apply to any page on Wikipedia, regardless of namespace. The "A" criteria is the criteria that is specific to mainspace. WP:STALE is for drafts that have simply been abandoned, aren't likely to ever be articles, and that don't have any other major problems - it was created to avoid overburdening MfD for no good reason. Yes, my respectful advice would be to avoid participating in deletion for now, learn more about the policies and guidelines, and when you do get involved again please consider more carefully what others are putting on your talk page. Waggie (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm saying, though. If it's copyvio, WP:COPYVIO says to carve out the copyvio bits if that's not the whole thing; it doesn't say to speedy delete a mix of copyvio and legit draft. And some editors and admins seem to think that promo covers anything they don't think "belongs in an encyclopedia" - including things whose only fault is being non-notable - which is exactly what the WP:CONSENSUS decision here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/721040983> says is NOT supposed to happen. The point of WP:STALE, as I read it, is that draft and userspace articles are only to be deleted with reason; in my participation at MfD I have supported deletion where there was a good reason, and opposed it where there wasn't, which is how I thought the system was supposed to work. Newimpartial (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This user lacks understanding of how WP defines promotional aka SPAM. When I find a page that has not been touched in 5 years with obvious copyvio and a bunch of promotional stuff about a non-N subject, I don't sift out the 2 sentences that I can't find with a Google search and carefully set that material aside for future use. We all delete unsuitable material all over the project in the normal course. Misunderstands copyvio - if I find a paragraph of copyvio in a long mainspace article, I remove it. If it's 70% easily provable copyvio in some stale draft with no obvious use to the project, I seek to delete it all. Legacypac (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Legacypac, I have never objected when you've flagged or nominated for deletion an article that has been dormant for 5 years; that's the (subjective, personal) threshold where I feel that time itself has passed enough that I no longer see its relevance. But when people have created and abandoned drafts within the last 5 years, and they aren't all copyvio or unambiguous spam, then I think they should go to MfD for a proper trial and execution. Is that really so wrong?

I know you "seek to delete it all", but that isn't WP:CONSENSUS which is why it should go to MfD to be adjudicated by case.

And I have frequently seen you invoke WP:N against user- and draft- space drafts, which is a clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS as expressed in WP:STALE. Haven't you also submitted drafts to AfC just to get them rejected as grounds for deletion? Newimpartial (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

First, stop with the BS accusations about my editing. I only occasionally use AfC to get another set of eyes and comments. I don't need AfC to justify a deletion move.

Then what was this <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=782622707&oldid=782622643> . I must have misunderstood what was happening there, particularly when you wrote "100% agree" in the edit summary where you deleted the AfC decline for the article you "submitted" Newimpartial (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Or how about this situation here <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vulcan1812/Bagley,_Alabama&action=history>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&curid=26467366&diff=782648198&oldid=782647878>

WP:STALE does not trump the Pillers. It is fine to ask "does this meet N?" because that is part of the process of deciding if there is a reason to salvage and promote or take some sort of delete action.

But this statement here is exactly where you disagree with WP:CONSENSUS, where you got in trouble before, and where I have objected to some of your nominations. The criterion you want to use is specifically disallowed by the consensus expressed here:<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/721040983> Newimpartial (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to flood MfD with pages that fall under a CSD, but that is what your inappropriate interference in CSD to force more MfDs is doing. Than at MfD you have posted numerous "procedural closes" to try and derail the MfD process. There are hundreds of thousands of page you could go improve, and hundreds of thousands more you could go fight spam on, so why spend your time forcing spam fighters and admins to redo their work, educate you, and justify every action while you insult us? Even while at ANi you continue to question and argue across various pages, whixh is an awful start to sitting out for a while. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Except that they don't unambigiously fall under a CSD, which is the requirement. Where they do so unambiguously fall under WP:SPAM or WP:COPYVIO, I have never reverted, objected, or opposed. My "procedural" votes are simply that - where an MfD nomination was either explicitly or implicitly based on WP:N (such as your WP:YAMB-based nominations) I procedurally opposed. Which is part of due process, and not an insult to anyone.

And since I received notice of this ANI, I have not voted in any XfD discussions whatsoever - which, since I haven't heard from anyone except Waggie that wasn't involved in the CSD disputes, shows some good faith on my part, I think. I have carried on a discussion about what the WP:CREATIVE criteria actually mean, which is a substantive dispute in which the other poster is, I believe, misconstruing the criteria as both written and applied, but that is clearly good faith on both our parts and anyway is over now. And it certainly has nothing to do with the "war on spam", which seems - unaccountably, to me - to be what you feel this ANI is about.

• Based on how Newimpartial has responded here I support closing this with a final warning that a block will occur the next time they continue their campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to hear from an admin who was not part of the userspace CSD disputes? Otherwise, I am in agreement. Newimpartial (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Like continuing their campaign with these three posts [284] questioning my clean up efforts and methods, including commenting on actions I took after the final warning? Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No final warning has been issued, Legacypac , and this discussion has not yet been closed, though either way I have stopped voting and participating in XfD. I was "commenting on your actions" only to clarify what I had said earlier, and to give you an opportunity to clarify for me how those diffs were not an attempt to clear up Draft-space contra WP:STALE.Newimpartial (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the person brought here with a block request to stop the activity you continue to engage in right in this thread. Perhaps a new hobby - instead of questioning everyone else's actions try working on this backlog [285] Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are stale userspace drafts a bigger problem than premature content deletion and violation of WP:STALE? I am puzzled.Newimpartial (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2017 (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.

Incivility - *Treker

I've been debating with this user about the inclusion of a semi-related product in a media franchise's navbox. (There was no violation of 3RR on the part of either user.) We discussed it on the talk page, but ultimately came no closer to a conclusion. The first time I suggested filing for 3rd-party dispute resolution, he actually said it was "a bad idea" (later removed). When I continued discussions on the talk page, it reached a point where he got overly angry, even declaring in regards to arbitration "sure, they might side with you, not the first time bad decition has been made instead of following guidlines and logic", and choosing to ignore what he deemed "moronic and mind numbing discussions". When I notified him that I was filing for dispute resolution since we weren't getting anywhere on our own, he refused to participate, invalidating the process and leaving the situation unresolved. 68.32.218.140 (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I presume you're use the term arbitration loselyloosely since this doesn't sound like the sort of dispute which is even close to needing that. Anyway I have no comment inon the incivility, however if you an editor isn't engaging in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, you could always choose some form which doesn't require their engagement. Ultimately if they don't engage and the community agrees with you, then it doesn't matter what they've said. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

So because he refused to participate in the dispute resolution, which he can do as it's voluntary, you filed an ANI? This seems like WP: Boomerang to me. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 07:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, User:WarMachineWildThing - The unregistered editor complained at DRN that the notice of the dispute had been deleted, and that the subject editor was becoming uncivil. I said that DRN is voluntary, and that incivility can be reported at WP:ANI, but first read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there seems little need for this to be at ANI, but WP:Boomerang would be a little severe in this instance, surely? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly, this is more about the use of harsh language and attitude in my other examples; the refusal was for context. I was told to report the incivility here on the dispute resolution entry. I'm aware of WP:Boomerang and understand it, but I genuinely don't appreciate being yelled at and repeatedly called a moron by another user, so I was willing to accept the risk of self-incrimination. 68.32.218.140 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked a bit about the actual stuff you are complaining about and while I don't think a boomerang is necessary I really have no idea what you're complaining about. Firstly no one seems to have called you a moron. The closests thing is "moronic and mind numbing discussions" which seems to be referring to the discussion not you, and while it may not be the most civil comment but is never going to warrant sanction if that's the only comment. I mean heck even taken together with other comments, it's not likely to count for much. As for these comments [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:The_Powerpuff_Girls&diff=782439948&oldid=782438851, I'd be very hesitant to call personal view that "bad decition has been made instead of following guidlines and logic" as incivil. Saying youyou don't know what navboxes are for is slightly uncivil, but again not likely to count for much, especially if there's some evidence it's true (I'm not saying there is). So yes, I have no idea why this thread is here at ANI. It's not ready for a BOOMERANG although if you keep complaining you do risk it becoming one. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Corrected some mistakes in my post. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's everyhting I have to say before I go on ignoring this again.

NO, my "that's a bad thing" not "that's a bad idea" (like you said) comment was a knee jerk reaction to reading that some project allow crossover games like these on navboxes, had nothing to do with opposing third opinion. I removed it becuse I realized it would be missinterpreted, (which it was, of course) and I didn't have the energy to explain it at the time.

I'm sorry that I got angry and was uncivil but I don't regret most of what I expressed.

Navbox discussions are always mind-numbing and moronic (I didn't call you moronic or a moron) because this website has some of the most vague rules about it. I've been told repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly by other editors on this website that crossover games like that don't belong on navboxes but apperantly that's not something that everyone likes to follow. There's a really great essay that makes a lot of sense that most people seem to go by, but apperently you don't need to follow it even thought it seems to be the only logic based guideline for these damn things.

Which makes every single discussion on the subject a giant "other stuff exists" debate of annoyance that goes nowhere. On my entire time on wikipedia, NEVER has a navbox debate been seteled with anything that resembeled logic that can be followed by every other project. I still think adding the LEGO game makes no sense becuse it only mentions the franchise once in the entire article, which makes the navbox at the bottom unneeded. But you know what I don't care anymore, add it back for all I care, it's doesn't matter anymore since I've already wanted to leave the debate.

This wouldn't have happend if wikipedia had better guidlines and strickter enforcement. I've had so many of these debates recently that I feel like I'm about to be driven insane with frustration. Several time have I started up discussions and not even recived a response after I've let the other editors version be left alone. It's a "my way, my way" preference driven piece of nonsense that I'm guilty of participating in too.

By god, I just want consistency.★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I too just wanted consistency, which is why I posed the question and wanted more insight in the first place. With you saying one thing and me seeing another, it's hard to know whose interpretation is right. I just want a definitive answer in writing so that in future instances where this debate arises, we have something to point to that will prevent the issue from becoming a whole to-do again. 68.32.218.140 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It's unlikely you will ever get a definite answer since that's simply not how wikipedia works. A lot of times we don't have better guidelines simply because we don't want them, take a read of WP:NOT especially WP:BURO. Maybe also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines if you have time. You should especially be aware you are not going to get someone who will rule on your dispute. Simply put policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect WP:Consensus. But it's ultimately up to the community to determine what the consensus is, and it can change anyway. Which means you should give up on expecting definitive answer for many disputes (including content ones like style and inclusion issues). Especially when you're trying to have some wide ranging intepretation which will apply to many different pages in one way or the other. While we do aim for consistency where we can, for various reasons it doesn't always happen and more significantly, there will often be disagreement about whether something is inconsistent. For example, just because it's okay to include something in one template doesn't mean it will always be okay to include it in another template even if the circumstances seem the same to you. (And for better or worse, people don't generally have to explain why they feel these two cases are different. Instead they just need a policy and guideline support explaination of why this should happen in case 1, and the other thing should happen in case 2 whenever it comes up in each individual case.) This doesn't mean there are no definitive cases. For example, if someone tries to call someone a paedophile based on flimsy evidence, that will be a definite no. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban requested for LABcrabs (and True Tech Talk Time) on BarlowGirl related topics

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.

---

• BarlowGirl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LABcrabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• True Tech Talk Time (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been concerned about the attempt at pushing a specific WP:POV on the BarlowGirl article by LABcrabs, who also uses the alternate account, True Tech Talk Time. A summary of the editor's argument in short is

• members of the band, an all-female (all sisters of the same family), Christian rock band made a "purity pledge" (a vow not to have sex until marriage) and took that further to not even date when they were in their teens,
• the band rose to fame with making the proclamation,
• this proclamation was part of their "image",
• members of the band have made comments that either favour or support non-Christian musicians, some of whom may be considered inappropriate in the eyes or Christians at best (the Beatles for one), and antithetical to their previously stated position at worst (Lady Gaga for one)
• therefore the band are hypocrites and this hypocrisy must be commented on in the article. Several editors have commented about this on the article's talk page indicating that the use of primary sources involves WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. This has been an ongoing discussion since November 10, 2016 (when a discussion was started on the article's talk page titled "BarlowGirl's hypocrisy". The editor has taken long breaks from pushing this content and since I'm a frequent editor and a watcher of the article, I am the one who usually reverts the content. Sometimes my reverts are complete, other times I revert only the OR and SYNTH. The talk page has seen five editors come out against LABcrabs and each time LABcrabs backs off, for a while. The thread can be see on the talk page and there are several statements by LABCrabs there that give me reason for concern.

A few hours ago, I asked LABcrabs to take a voluntary topic ban. This was based on the editor's addition at 2017-05-21T16:03:43, which I reverted six hours later, and promptly discussed with the editor. The editor refused, stating "I am absolutely unwilling to have people dictate to me which topics I should discuss and for how long". I am requesting a topic ban for LABcrabs (and the alternate account, True Tech Talk Time) in relation to BarlowGirl. With comments like "I confronted Lauren Barlow on her Lady Gaga idolatry multiple times, which resulted in blocking and a refusal to comment. If the motive is pure, or even if it's something like wanting to 'grow up', why not simply tell fans?" and the additional commentary that follows, it's clear that this has become a personal goal (if not vendetta) related to the subject and that there is little hope that there will be any neutrality when discussing it.

The real problem I have is that LABcrabs has added some good content to this article and others by the subject, but seems incapable of objectively approaching this fringe subject. I am not pleased with having to request a complete topic ban on anything to do with BarlowGirl, but think it's best. If someone has a better suggestion, please offer it, otherwise the request for the topic ban stands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What Walter fails to mention is that the original user that reverted the additions (Lady Gaga and others, but I now only keep Lady Gaga on the list) on November 2, 2016 was an IP address associated with a paid BarlowGirl (BG) staff member. The IP only made two edits edits on Wikipedia, both regarding BarlowGirl. The first edit removed artists, with the editor leaving this comment: "Removed misleading information that was given out of context." Instead of explaining why BG endorsed said artists, even if there is indeed a pure or harmless reason, the content was simply removed. The second edit is even more alarming: "Removed Purity section, It doesn't reflect band member's [sic] current views". This is original research by this friend/staff, but I believe it is very true that BG departed from its purity teachings. I have previously asked this staff member why BG was yoked up with such secular artists like Bruno Mars, who go against the purity teachings, and the reply was that I cannot judge because I didn't know the Barlow sisters' hearts. A few months later, the staff refused to discuss the topic, yet continues to imply to other fans that everything is okay.

I am not willing to reveal that IP editor's identify at this time. I would like to quote WP:PAID here: "If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." The IP contributer clearly failed to make any disclosure whatsoever, and I believe that BarlowGirl has an ulterior motive in paying staff members to edit its Wikipedia page.

Walter's suggestion also sets a terrible precedent in banning me from other topics simply because I disagree with them. I have edited True Love Waits, which I changed after edits on BarlowGirl's page removed artists like Bruno and Beyoncé. On that page, I also talk about a similar band, the Jonas Brothers, where only one of the three members fulfilled the purity pledge. I talk about the brothers' involvement with Victoria's Secret Pink and even edited Pink's page: I have done my best to add photos and properly source content, despite disagreeing strongly with the company. This and my contributions to BarlowGirl's Home for Christmas article stand as strong examples of how I can contribute to Wikipedia without slandering a brand.

I would like the discussion to better provide a solution in light of BarlowGirl's involvement with the article and my involvement with the article. If someone wishes to ask Lauren Barlow why she supports Lady Gaga, that's their call. (To her credit, she let one user comment about how "some of her video's [sic] have been disrespectful towards [C]hristians".) The topics of purity and staying separate from the world are discussed amply in the Christian community, whether or not BG is mentioned. I am asking for a balanced perspective with this. --LABcrabs (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not the anon editor's involvement LABcrabs, its yours. The anon editor did not make statements that make it clear that they are trying to make a point, yours did. I also noted that you have made good edits to articles and would have preferred you take voluntary leave, but you don't want that, yet you also want to make your point. Do you see the problem that I see and what I hope to achieve? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And then this with a lot of OR. I do not see this getting better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to take a temporary voluntary leave on my terms. This would include June, July and August of this year, plus the remainder of May. My concerns with the paid "anonymous" user still stand, and you are incorrect: this "anonymous" user clearly has no problems with these secular artists and BG's change in purity beliefs. My concerns with Lauren Barlow's recent moral changes still stand. I encourage you and any other person interested in the topic to ask Lauren, if you wish, on Twitter and/or on Instagram why she believes what she believes. I would like this incident closed if we can agree on my voluntary break from the topic of BarlowGirl, and only the topic of BarlowGirl, for that period of time.

"a lot of OR." Yeah, right. --LABcrabs (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not the anonymous editor. If you want to open a complaint against this editor, do so elsewhere. The issue here is your refusal to see that SYNTH and OR are not acceptable ways of adding information to BLPs. You taking a vacation is not acceptable which is why I opened this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

BarlowGirl paid. I have since taken my edit and personally removed much of the content (Bruno Mars, Beyoncé, etc.) that isn't recently relevant (2017) to BarlowGirl. That leaves us with Lady Gaga, which Lauren Barlow portrayed positively in 2016 and 2017. Per your request, I found a secondary source (Tommy2) that is actively used on Wikipedia, yet you refuse it on the grounds that Superchic[k] covered Lady Gaga, not BarlowGirl. I say again that the BarlowGirl and Superchick live tour has two artists partnering together for one main event. Again, BarlowGirl put its name on an event where songs from the Black Eyed Peas, Lady Gaga and the Beatles were performed. If it had any issue that covering such artists would go against Jesus Christ, it would have been brought up, but it was allowed to pass instead. This is how it started, subtly and in a small manner, before growing to what it is today. I will not keep repeating myself. The fact that you want me banned permanently, and not temporarily on a longer period of time than ever before, speaks volumes about you. I wonder if you are a fan boy and/or part of the paid deal. The original edit I made was on August 7, 2016. It was not disputed until the paid contributor intervened on November 2, 2016. I refuse a permanent ban because it is an undue burden that will not only censor my ability to talk about BarlowGirl, but also risk growing into further censorship and instead give priority to paid contributors funded by the subject of this article. --LABcrabs (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition to my three-month break from the topic, I also suggest that someone would educate me on the matter of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, if need be. I'm reading Synth and I notice that my edits now show little to no Synth. The examples shown seem to blame the UN for the 160 wars and push that Jones is not a plagiarist. What my edit presents is that a) some Christians, but not all, agree with Lauren and b) the indisputable fact that Lauren Barlow's modesty standards have changed over time. It was women like Lady Gaga that Lauren Barlow referred to as immodestly dressed. There is no dispute about that. There is also no dispute about the "mixed reception" Gaga has among those who profess Christ. If someone wants to discuss with me on separate pages like Talk pages, that's fine with me. --LABcrabs (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not been following on that band's talk page. I and the other four editors do dispute your claims and most have stated SYNTH. I'm not sure how you can't understand that what you're doing is combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". That's the basis of synth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to take a leave for the rest of this year (2017) on English Wikipedia as far as editing the BarlowGirl article, the band's albums, its singles and tours. I have no obligation to take a leave, but I volunteer to do so for the stated time. I am not open to any other proposals that concern a topic ban. If my proposal is rejected, it is cancelled. --LABcrabs (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not enough and not until you recognize how your edits are not appropriate based on SYNTH. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Whether you're open to it or not isn't the issue. Until you are willing to edit the article within Wikipedia policy, you should not be able to edit the article (or the talk page). 204.148.13.62 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: As stated, I now withdraw any and all temporary break proposals. Further, I suspect foul play on Walter and others seeking to ban me. Show me the exact policy on Wikipedia that prevents me from sharing the fact that BarlowGirl (BG) endorses Lady Gaga. All of this "Wikipedia policy" excuse seems like nothing more than BarlowGirl's PR department trying to do damage control. Walter Görlitz is a biased pro-BG editor, and so is Royalbroil. I've contributed lots to Wikipedia, including many edits to BG's Home for Christmas. I will be making an unlisted video soon on this page because none of you seem to be concerned about the situation. My understanding is that Walter, Royalbroil, the paid IP (68.108.83.5) and others are mocking and gaslighting this situation, acting as if BG did not change and being ignorant of the facts. I've messaged the individual behind the paid IP outside of Wikipedia, by the way, long before those two edits on November 2, 2016. Though I hesitate, I can present messages if need be. I believe that this situation as a whole needs to be examined. To simply impose a ban on me is to be ignorant of this situation. --LABcrabs (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:NOR is the policy you're looking for. For one musician to comment favourably about another singer does not in any way imply "endorsing" that singer. What you mean by "endorsing" is that you mean that they believe that that person's lifestyle and opinions coincide with the other person's. As for your crusade, make all the videos you want. If you think I'm doing what I'm doing because I am pro BarlowGirl, you're mistaken. I am pro-Wikipedia and we have rules that govern what can be said on the project. I think it's time an admin actually comments on this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• I've blocked True Tech Talk Time as an illegitimate alternative account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Bbb23. Are there any admins who are concerned about LABcrabs' use of sources and whether it meets the criteria of SYNTH? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've given User:LABcrabs an alert of the discretionary sanctions under WP:BLPSE. This means that LABcrabs could be topic banned by any admin if they make edits of BarlowGirl that are inappropriate under the WP:BLP policy. Since the editor has made no edits at all of BarlowGirl since they were alerted on the 25th, there is not yet a reason for enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I am satisfied with the state of this. Feel free to close the request. I will raise it again should the issue arise again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2017 (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.

Module talk:Webarchive

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 Lua module is used in over 160k articles. Reverts and changes have significant impact on the backlink databases etc.. a user wants to make a change but that change does not have consensus. I've repeatedly asked this user to get consensus before they make the change but they are edit warring. I need help/intervention. Can we please: 1. Restore the template to its original state before the edit war began and 2. Ask this user to get consensus before they make any further changes to the Module. I'm asking ANI for help due to the impact this edit war is having across 160k articles. It's also a case of template editor right abuse, "avoid making unilateral decisions, and instead propose the change on the template's talk page, and then make the change if there are no objections". Thank you. -- GreenC 14:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

No time to dig into this in detail, but one thing jumps out: I think we treat the template-editor right more like an admin wheel warring, and less like an editor edit warring, don't we? i.e. reverting again is taken much more seriously, and BRD is more tightly observed than in normal editing, and consequences are more severe. So thanks, GreenC, for not reverting back, and @Codename Lisa:, you need to revert yourself and discuss further, or you're likely to have the template editor right taken away.

That said, as NYB likes to say, this minor question about wording (using "the" or not, and "on" vs. "at"), is probably not on the list of top 200 issues currently affecting Wikipedia, so let's all try to not get too snarky and annoyed. Just be patient, spend the extra 5 minutes discussing, and resolve it like peers, instead of opponents. Unless there is some previous history between you two, which I do not need to know about... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, hello, everyone.

Isn't the pot calling kettle black? I myself intended to report Green Cardamom here for Template Editor right abuse, but considered it too hostile.

Basically, he was not allowed to revert me in the first place, because this revert is a violation of the reverting policy: He seems to have no objection to contribution itself; as such it is a disruptive edit. His only ground for reversion is:

"a user wants to make a change but that change does not have consensus."

Untrue. As we all know, Manual of Style and other guidelines are considered community-wide consensus. When I told him that, he replied that "it's not hard policy". Alright. That's true. I am enforcing a not-hard-policy. Is my contribution a violation of something stronger than not-hard-policy?

"It's also a case of template editor right abuse." Right back at you. According to Wikipedia:Template editor § No discussion, I can perform this specific change without discussing it first. But Template Editors are specifically forbidden from taking advantage of their editing privilege to subvert the community consensus just because they like it! (That's what GC is doing.)

Look here, people. When I came to Wikipedia, I made it my top priority to clearly communicate my dispute concern on the first message, and if the mistake was my assessment of the situation, give up. To err is human. But the way I see it, GC wrongly assessed the situation (mistook a consensus requirement for a discussion requirement) but is now refusing to admit to that mistake.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to give everyone a notice: A self-revert has been effected. Well, I still think I am right, but since two administrators asked, I think I must oblige them. No, it was not a direct order, but failing to oblige two admins, no less, needs to an extremely good reason. (No, I am not flattering. Example of a good reason is: When an admin edits an article and adds an incorrect unreferenced sentence when the correct well-referenced version is two sentences further down the paragraph.) —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• This should be handled on the talk page. For the record, I agree with Floq that warring via templates is a much higher issue than simple edit warring and closer to when admin are guilty of wheel warring, as TE is indeed an advanced bit. That means we are quick to strip the template editor bit from someone who wars without a long discussion. I don't know who is right or wrong, don't really care since that is for the talk page, but you both need to be careful to keep the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam and Dennis Brown both mentioned wheel-warring, but only one side of it. Wheel-warring is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways: An admin never counter-acts another admin's action without talking to him first. (Dennis Brown specially observed this proviso in regard to me in 2012.) In this context, not only the counter-revert by Codename Lisa was wrong, the initial revert by Green Cardamom was also wrong. The correct procedure for editing high-use template is either Discuss→Edit or Edit→Discuss→Decide. Both involved parties here must take care that: (1) Wrong does not justify another wrong. (2) Any actor is responsible (at least partly) for the repercussions of his/her own actions, including provokation or entrapment. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a valid comparison. With higher privilege bits comes the higher expectations of conduct and accountability. Hopefully we won't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It is my hope. I've attempted to reboot the communication to focus only on the contribution as opposed to the contributors. Let's see what happens. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • You hear that, Green Cardamom? To sum things up, both of you misused the tool, but Codename Lisa has taken steps to remedy her misconduct. You are expected to do the same. Also, you may not consider her self-revert as a sign of your revert being justified or a nod to future wheel-warring with other TEs. You TEs must behave much better than stubborn school children. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 23:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The funniest thing has happened: Ever since I rebooted the discussion, accepting the burden of being wrong in process, promising a compromise and a discussion only on the contribution, Green Cardamom has stopped appearing in the discussion altogether. The reboot took place on 26 May 2017 13:51 UTC. Right now, it is 28 May 2017 10:39 UTC. Three hours and twelve minutes from now, it will be forty-eight hours. How am I supposed to interpret this? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
          • That's easy: His contribution log has not logged any changes since that date either. But of course, unless you haven't heard of the word "weekend", you mustn't be surprised. Wait until 30 May 2017 13:00 UTC, when we can be sure that the weekend is over, or until his contribution log shows a significant number of additional contributions, whichever came sooner. If nothing happened, come here. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Without revealing personal details it will be another day. -- GreenC 14:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Dennis Brown and Floquenbeam: WP:WHEEL is referenced in the last sentence of WP:Template editor#Editing disputes. It could probably be more prominent and more direct: "Edit warring on a template-edit-protected page constitutes a wheel war, which may result in immediate removal of the template editor user right". WP:TPEREVOKE says similar (why are there two sections on the same material?). I might start a discussion there or possibly make a bold edit. --Izno (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Both editors here seem to be good editors, but yes, it might be good if that was bolded a bit more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Izno: Why do you think this is a discrepancy? To me, it seems a deliberate act of excluding wheel-warring from grounds for revocation. Sure, people in this discussion seem to think strongly about it, but the rest of the community might not. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 23:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • @FleetCommand: I'm not sure what you mean you ask Why do you think this is a discrepancy?, since I did not say I thought it to be a discrepancy. It is clear to me the intent of the one section is mirrored in the other, in fact, so much so that they should probably be in the same section rather than in different sections. --Izno (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • @Izno: In that case, ignore my first sentence and read the rest. —FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
          • @FleetCommand: I did (do not assume I did not) and find it irrelevant to this thread (or simply a wrong opinion), so I see no reason to comment. --Izno (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2017 (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.

Continued uploading of copyvio's

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.

---

Seems MonkeyKingdom (talk · contribs) is not getting/heeding copyvio warnings. I came across some files they uploaded the other day as some were tagged with {{OTRS pending}} only to find no permissions and other permission issues in the OTRS system. Obviously the vio warnings are not working. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Block from uploading files. — JJBers 17:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Can't block someone only from uploading. I see that MonkeyKingdom has explained themselves on Mlpearc's user talk. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• I suggest we wait for the proposed deletions to expire, since they assert that the permission has been given. -- Luk ^talk 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd delete them all now. You're not telling me that badly cropped and shopped images like File:Henry Musasizi Official.jpg are genuinely works of a government? Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I stumbled across these images when I was doing my patrolling and I just asked another admin (Oshwah) to delete them all under F9 and they agreed to do so. I had no knowledge of this thread going on when I asked them to take action. When it is clear that the person just stole the image from a random site and uploaded it using F11 is not an option and it never should be. As for the images claimed to be by the Ugandan government are copyrighted. Period. Leaving them here for 7 days is nonviable when it comes to copyright. If they upload them again, they should be indef'ed. --Majora (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Luk, Black Kite, and Oshwah: The files have been deleted and MonkeyKingdom has upladed more at Commons. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak to the deleted files, because I haven't seen them, but the [files uploaded to Commons do not appear to be a copyright violation. They appear to be simple snapshots, taken by someone close to the subject (or the subject themself). There is no evidence that the files have been published elsewhere, so we should assume good faith in this instance that the uploader is, indeed, the creator of the image. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Luk, Black Kite, Oshwah, JJBers, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Majora: Those files on Commons are under discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MonkeyKingdom. Messing with OTRS shows bad faith.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2017 (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 Philip Day (businessman)

Resolved

 – Tinkerbellmademedoit indef blocked until they respond to the conditions of the block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tinkerbellmademedoit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a legal threat in his edit summary at Philip Day (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I have restored the previous version, as the information is cited in a reliable source, The Guardian. I have left them a message and based on their editing history, a COI warning. I will notify them of this discussion. Edwardx (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

41.138.78.50

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

I have no idea what this IP is babbling about, but I know that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia Could we please have a short block? Many times, when a vandal sees the message saying that he is blocked he goes away forever, not knowing that (unlike pretty much every other site on the internet) our blocks are often temporary. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No comment on 'babbling' but User:Bbb23 has issued a checkuser block of 41.138.78.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) which includes this IP address. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)