Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Technical 13 drafts in other editor's names

User:Technical 13 seems to have been blocked back in June following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 but I found a number of draft articles that User:Technical 13 created but stored under the user User:TheShadowCrow from 2013 . I have no idea of the background of this case nor how these two users knew each other but I'm trying to figure out if pages like User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Alain Boghossian (Special:PrefixIndex/User:TheShadowCrow/ shows about 28 in total]]) should be reviewed/examined/taken to MFD or just G13 nuked. It looks like the articles were created at User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox in one giant pile together and then copy-and-paste moved out like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no immediate evidence that T13 created (as in wrote) those articles -- TheShadowCrow did, and T13 merely put them into article space or divided them up into smaller individual sandboxes (see [1]). There's no way of immediately telling if the two users are the same; one of the things T13 was banned for is socking, but that doesn't mean this was a sock account. Bbb23 and/or DeltaQuad should have an opinion on this and/or know what to do. In terms of any usable content, the consensus on two separate MfDs was to retain the content [2]. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 wasn't banned for socking, they retired rather than go through the case. Therefore the provisions of Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting_a_draft apply; I don't think the prior Mfd has much applicability because TheShadowCrow seems to have ceased editing. Per not buro a mass Mfd could be proposed, but even easier would be ignoring them useless there's some issue (e.g. blp/ copyvios...) NE Ent 10:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, his requested block from Floq was changed to an ArbCom site-ban by Euryalus. And one of (as I stated) the issues was the evidence of sockpuppetry that came to light during the investigation. The site-ban and the abuse of multiple accounts is noted on his userpage. In my opinion it's worth retaining the material and publishing the drafts live assuming they meet notability. I think it's also worth CUing whether TheShadowCrow was another one of T13's socks or not, since there's already an SPI on him. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sure if the 28 or so articles (Special:PrefixIndex/User:TheShadowCrow) were taken to MfD now, they would all be deleted, so to IAR I would just speedy delete everything as a Stale Draft. Pinging @GiantSnowman: for his opinion too. JMHamo (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow's last edits seem to have been in May 2014 Special:Contributions/TheShadowCrow, so it seems unlikely there'll be anything for a CU to look at. Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 was attempting to help TheShadowCrow who was under a topic ban and as part of that, created the pages in question. I don't see any particular reason to suspect sockpuppetry. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The pages are:

many of them have a main-space equivalent already. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

Yerevantsi might know what to do with these. Note that any text reused should be attributed to TheShadowCrow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

There is no hurry to delete these. Perhaps from one form the stale draft project can check to see if they are wroth saving. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But by god those have a mangled history. Technical 13's edit summary creating the page gave literally no idea where it came from. It almost would be better if there's anything worth saving to go create a new draft version with an actual link to the original gigantic sandbox rather than keep that edit summary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest making a null edit with an edit summary pointing to the original page for attribution. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Complicating matters is that in some cases it seems the sandbox was a copy of the mainspace article that the editor was working on sourcing/improving. User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Karen Ashotovich Grigorian is an example of this I looked at. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Still, we're talking an editor who created drafts while topic banned from the area into a giant sandbox and then it was copied and pasted over to another sandbox by a different user. I'll take those to MFD that already exist but I'm generally against allowing for any user's content unless it's really good given that they were under a topic ban. It's the same general arguments we have over G13 and content from banned users I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical13 was a problematical user. From the start of his account he made pointy edits, resulting in blocks. Then he calmed down enough to get Template Editor rights. Then he reverted to form, several times, and got those rights removed, then blocked. In the midst of this, he decided that being a "mentor" to the ShadowCrow might help him on his path to awesomeness. So he moved some sandboxes. Then the Crow didn't like that, and they had a little fight. Executive summary: If any of this is worth keeping, own it. Otherwise, nuke it. Begoon ^talk 12:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown gave TheShadowCrow the go-ahead to create drafts in a sandbox in hopes that the editor would be productive, but unfortunately the editor was a bit too anxious to resume editing in the banned area, and it didn't work out. isaacl (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per G13. ShadowCrow hasn't edited anything for a year and a half and T13 is banned by ArbCom no less. Let's not waste any more time discussing this - with 5,000,000 articles already we don't need to squabble over the loss of a handful that were created under dubious circumstances.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I really wish someone would not have gone through and opened MfDs on these, because most or all of them can be deleted as stale drafts. Now instead of an inconvenience, it's a pain in the ass. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Spike Wilbury WP:G13 doesn't cover userspace drafts that don't contain a AFC header. Else I'd have a lot easier time cleaning out the 45k pages at Category:Stale userspace drafts than just clogging up MFD daily (and even then there's always an oddball opposition that some editor could return after years of inactivity). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Fair point, although in my mind this is a good candidate for IAR and not to create excess process for process' sake. Would you say we have a way forward now, or does this thread need to remain open? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• The only real problem here seems to be that Technical 13 did not provide attribution while copy-pasting chunks from the ssndbox into standalone pages. This can be readily fixed through the use of the template {{Copied}} on the talk page. The decision whether to delete or not should be purely based on the content of the drafts, rather than circumstances of creation, since TheShadowCrow does not seem to have directly violated any bans in the process. 103.6.159.70 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The easy case is content that was created entirely by TheShadowCrow originally; a null edit with an edit summary crediting this editor should suffice and will avoid encumbering the lifetime of the original sandbox page. The hard cases would be those that copied mainspace articles; ideally those could be either deleted or any useful changes merged into the mainspace article with an edit summary providing credit to TheShadowCrow, so once again the sandbox would not have to continue to exist simply to provide history. isaacl (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Brewcrewer

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

---

I was editing History of the Jews in Jordan and suddenly User:Brewcrewer shows up, places 'Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement' template on the article's talk page [3] and then leaves a warning on my talk page claiming I violated 1RR [4]. First of all, the article is irrelevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict, its talking about History of Jews in Jordan. And when I tried to tell him so on his talk page User talk:Brewcrewer#Hi he gave a short irrelevant response and refused any discussion. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You may need to reevaluate your position here. From the user talk page discussion, it appears at least one other editor agrees with him. Just sayin' John from Idegon (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That specific editor stalks my contribution list and keeps working against me. Not to mention his argument is baseless.--Makeandtoss (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I have had people stalking my edits for years...just get use to it, if you edit in the I-P area. And generally, recall that the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement is meant the be broadly applied. In my experience; that means that *if* anyone editing an article thinks it is under Wikipedia:ARBPIA...then it is. I hardly ever agree with Brewcrewer, but I think he is within his rights here, Huldra (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

All the history of Jews in Arabic countries articles have no arbitration template. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of the articles which are under Wikipedia:ARBPIA have no template. Say, each and every article on the Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (a group of articles I do a lot of work on) clearly comes under Wikipedia:ARBPIA ...but only a handful actually has a template on the talk-page. (Actually, the only article I can think of having an ARBPIA-template is Talk:Tantura. Not even Talk:Deir Yassin has a template). Broadly applied means just that. Long-time editors knows this. Huldra (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: What I meant was, nobody found History of Jews in..., related to the Arab Israeli conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I see that History of the Jews in Jordan has a "Jordan and Palestine"-paragraph....IMO, just that paragraph makes the whole article come under ARBPIA-sanctions. That, say, History of the Jews in Egypt does not have an ARBPIA-tag, does not mean that it does not come under ARBPIA-sanctions: the whole paragraph "After the foundation of Israel in 1948" in that article is, IMO, directly related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. That Talk:Deir Yassin is not templated with ARBPIA-sanctions only means that all of us "regulars" who edit is takes it for granted that it is under ARBPIA-sanctions.... I would have thought most of the History of the Jews in any Arab country -articles were the same. Btw, I just saw two editors reported for violating 1RR on the Jews -article (link)....but that in the end, it was concluded that the Jews- article was not under ARBPIA-sanctions. This, just to give you some idea as to how broadly ARBPIA-sanctions can be thought to reach, Huldra (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Do you seriously consider the "Jordan and Palestine" paragraph relevant to the article? And, lets say because its irrelevant, I removed it. Does that make the article magically bounce back from 1RR to normal?Makeandtoss (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Makeandtoss: I would have thought each and every one of the History of the Jews in any Arab country -articles needed a section on 1948, and aftermath, to be complete. And such a section would automatically put it under ARBPIA-sanctions. Yes, I guess you could "fork it off", make it its own article (History of the Jews in Jordan after 1948) ..then the original History of the Jews in Jordan before 1948 would not be under ARBPIA-sanctions. (I am not sure about the 1948-date, here; it could be earlier. Articles like 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine are clearly under ARBPIA-sanctions.)
• In the end, though, my 2-cents; there are fights worth making here on Wikipedia....and there are fights not worth making. Fighting to have an article someone wants under ARBPIA-sanctions not under ARBPIA-sanctions: well, just not worth it..... Huldra (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't worth it, but for that user to show up, acting all godly. Is unacceptable.Makeandtoss (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Brewcrewer. You can't avoid the political connotations. Also, you aren't nearly a nuetral point of view, as seen from your disturbing insistence on comparing Israel to Nazi Germany on wikipedia. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, perfect! Let all the users who disagree with me on Wikipedia come here to stand against me. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Makeandtoss: heh, heh: if you are lucky, a sock or two will be along soon, too....they normally are... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Starship9000 and IPs

Back in 2013, I was involved with an unfortunately necessary effort to get Starship9000 blocked across Wikimedia properties. Recently, several IP addresses that appear related to each other have made vandalizing edits to both Starship9000's talk page and my own. I suspect the perpetrator may be Starship9000 himself. In any case, I'd like an extra set of eyes on this. Here are the involved IPs, some of whom have been recently blocked:

• 166.172.56.183
• 166.172.59.33
• 166.137.97.113
• 166.137.97.98
• 166.137.97.237
• 166.172.58.4

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewman327 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 November 2015‎

Yeah, I've been seeing this stuff. Can we protect the page, at least? GAB^Hello! 21:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, I just filed an RPP with a link back to this thread. Andrew³²⁷ 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protected indefinitely. The IPs are too scattered for a rangeblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I have blocked the individual IP addresses. Of course, the vandal may well just come up with a new IP address, but a study of the editing history of the IP ranges used suggests that individual users may have access only to a few IP addresses in the range, in which case blocking each one as it is used may at least significantly slow down the rate of vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. It's not a big deal now, but the original Starship9000 saga slowly escalated over time, so I wanted it on people's radar in case that happens again. Andrew³²⁷ 12:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrewman327 I am deciding to abandon the Starship9000 account. I don't want to go back to the times where you made a request for it to be locked globally, myself being blocked for 1 year, blew my adaption exams, I mean youyou name it. I want to abandon that account. Go Pack Go --166.173.248.231 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? Can someone bring me up to date? I blocked Starship in 2013 for 1 year. That block has expired. Is there some new block that is not in the logs? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, if the IPs are Starship's then a reblock should be considered for disruptive editing. Either way, I semi-protected their page to stop the disruption. It can be unprotected if Starship returns to productively edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So if he is not currently blocked, does anyone know why he is editing as 166.173.248.231 ? Is it because he intends to abandon the Starship account? In which case he should consider a Wikipedia:Clean start but only after reading what it entails very carefully. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

how do you even know? I want to abandon it because I don't wanna go fucking back to the times where you like blocked me for 1 year, me being locked globally, me violating my unblock conditions, tagging articles, I mean you name it. I dot want to be blocked anymore and if I edit I don't know when. Please reply Kudpung. Ps: Fuck the Minnesota Vikings hope they lose to my (Starship9000) Packers. I don't care if packers are underdogs. --166.172.57.27 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for representatives of OMICS Publishing Group

Proposal: a site ban for Joinopenaccess (talk · contribs) and any other editor representing OMICS Publishing Group -- mainly on grounds of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive, which shows long-term and on-going attempts to use sockpuppets for promotional purposes and to remove well-sourced negative content. In addition, implied legal threats e.g. here (with emphasis on alleged "defamatory" editing by other editors). This disruption has been going on for many years now -- see this section of the OMICS talk page, giving other sockpuppet cases, as well as the archive indicating the nature of the "participation" from representatives of the company. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Nomoskedasticity is making a fair request. A sympathetic perspective of the other side is that seemingly, a series of staff have been hired by this company to promote it. The company seems to be in India. Perhaps they employ 1000 people - they say this. I expect that they are hiring educated academics. At the level of the individual, I have sympathy for the scholars who work for this academic publisher with good intentions. At the level of the company, OMICS actions seem to have little regard for Wikipedia volunteer time, and seems to not support the paid contributors who are being directed to make heartfelt pleas to Wikipedia.

Companies can change over time, but OMICS does not seem like they are here to make an encyclopedia. I have not seen evidence that staff of this organization wish to learn or consider Wikipedia community guidelines. They have an agenda. I cannot summarize all conversation because there are years of exchanges, but in brief - OMICS has not ever offered to give what Wikipedia requires in Wikipedia:Competence is required. I wish that OMICS could repeat back what has been told to them to demonstrate that they care about what they are being told. Maybe they have had 10+ staff engage Wikipedia - who knows. It is rough for volunteers to give this organization the time it requests, and they request a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note. Wikipedia should publish the truth from reliable prominent sources, not the opinions by competitors/representative from companies engaged in similar business. Yes OMICS Employees about 1000+ employees, there are all educated academics mostly from India, please don't highlight the nationality and criticize. There is no ban on OMICS Publications as explained, US Government never questioned OMICS about quality, the letter is about trademark infringement. After receipt of letter from DHHS/National Institute of Health OMICS rectified the error and later OMICS Published 2000+ [5][6] articles from last three years funded by DHHS/National Institute of Health , it is a clear evidence that there is no ban of OMICS Publications.

We request the redrafting of first paragraph OMICS Publishing Group as there is a clear evidence that few Wiki editors framing sentences to make OMICS Wikipedia page defamatory The word predatory should be kept at controversies section only, as wiki editors following for other Academic publishing companies like Bentham Science Publishers, Dove Medical Press, Libertas Academica, MDPI and recently added Frontiers Media etc. Wikimedia should publish the truth then only people respect if it is becoming a platform for defamatory content for competitors then no one is going believe wikimedia content. Please don't spread lies through wikipedia, Please respect the truth. Refer the links for proof [7][8] Joinopenaccess (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support (to be clear I did suggest this in the first place). They've been given many opportunities to contribute constructively but have repeatedly tried to deceptively manipulate the article and we have to draw a line somewhere and ban them from contributing here any further. Most recently, several editors have been arguing that they are listed in pubmed when as User:Randykitty has pointed out, only very few of their papers are included there due to the work being published by NIH funded authors rather than the whole journal being indexed. User:Goattender started advocating changes, but as I explained here and here it became obvious that they were also being paid to represent OMICS, despite not being related to the Scholarscentral group of socks (not that they edited again after I confronted them). It's gotten to the point where they cannot be trusted to even suggest changes and a ban would stop us wasting even more time. (Just in case anyone is wondering this source is the most recent RS, published in August, and confirms that the current article is still accurate). SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is an unsavory company publishing very-low-quality academic journals and organizing equally low-quality conferences. Given the sources, our article is treating them lightly... The OMICS editors keep insisting that we include information about handwritten notes, make claims (like their journals being included in PubMed) that are demonstrably incorrect, etc. Just as in real life they don't seem to be interested in delivering quality products, they don't seem to be here to produce a good encyclopedia either. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, after having seen the sockpuppet investigation of Scholarscentral, the continuous unjustified de-defamatory edit( request)s on OMICS Publishing Group, and a quick verification in the NLM catalogue. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as there is only so much good faith you can give before you've run out of patience. Seeing the sockpuppet case, this is a no-brainier at this point. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support re assume good faith. If this is areputable company acting in good faith then they are incompetent. If they are not then we don't want them any way. Op47 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support If the behaviour of Joinopenaccess is indicative of the behaviour of representatives of OMIC group, then a site ban is definitely due. Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The master account User:Scholarscentral is already de facto banned with a long history of spamming/whitewashing OMICS articles, sockpuppetry and copyright violations, but a ban on any editing on behalf of this company is needed to prevent proxying as was threatened here by a recent sock. January (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It is an unacceptable move, i never edited the main article OMICS Publishing Group, I Only kept comments and asking permission to do editing at talk page. My question is why few editors are interested in this article from last three years. Any way I respect the decision of editors and administrators. Joinopenaccess (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: After looking at some the relevant talk discussions and that massive sequences of SPIs, I have nothing but sympathy for the editors who have had to wrestle with this company over the years. That being said, I have serious misgivings about the solution being suggested here and question whether a handful of editors on ANI are empowered to employ a sanction of this scope against an ambiguously-defined and potential large class of contributors. It's possible I am unaware of a relevant instance, but to the best of my knowledge, a siteban has never been instituted against all editors, present or future, associated with a given organization. That's a huge leap from the normal processes accepted under community consensus and any such move would require extensive and broad discussion in the community at large, especially when there are other more conventional oversight/administrative procedures which have not even been discussed as yet; for example, why was this exceptional action been deemed the best approach before the notion of taking the matter to ArbCom, which is ideally situated to deal with this manner of issue?

As a matter of longstanding and overwhelming consensus, editors are generally treated as individuals and their actions accordingly judged on an independent basis rather than by the company they keep or the associations they have, on or off the project. What would happen if, for example, the company hired a non-SPA, experienced editor to try to rehabilitate their image here within the framework of policy? This sanction would have such a user mechanistically site-banned, regardless of whether they knew about this ruling going in. For that matter, its not outside the realm of possibility that the company might send some of its employees here as SPAs and that one or more of them might make an honest study of WP's protocols and work within them. Regardless of whether or not that is likely, this proposed ban would judge and ban those individuals before their first contribution to the project, an action that is manifestly against some of Wikipedia's most deeply-held and critical open-collaboration principles. For the present time, paid editing is not cause for censure. Nor is the conduct of editors judged solely on the basis of the the span of topics they edit upon or their reasons for choosing them, even be they closely related to said topics. I understand the frustration of the above editors and others who have had to reign in what seems unquestionably to be a dodgy company here to manipulate process to its own ends--believe me, I've been there with regard to such editors. But I just don't see how a solution such as that proposed above is within the purview of a handful of editors on a noticeboard to institute, in seeming defiance of some of this community's most extensive and important consensus, especially prior to pursuing all available conventional administrative channels. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. English3023523 appears to be another OMICS spa. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• The post from Snow-Rise is unfortunate. No one is proposing to be unreasonable here. If someone from OMICS decides to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly, then we can discuss rescinding the ban. To object to a ban because such a thing is possible is entirely beside the point -- because years of experience have shown that this is not what we should expect. The behaviour we have seen is the behaviour we should expect. It's thoroughly disruptive, and we should use the tools we have to deal with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound contrarian here, but I think it's indicative of a profound confusion about how consensus building proceeds on this project that you would describe another editor raising their concerns as "unfortunate", especially when we are talking about the possibility of making a huge departure from pre-exisiting policy and process regarding community sanctions. Either those concerns are superfluous, in which case they can be easily addressed or else they are well-founded in policy and community consensus, in which case it is manifestly a good thing that I have raised them. But it is in no event "unfortunate" that an editor chooses to provide their perspective, except for those instances in which comments are made with intention of offense or otherwise in bad faith.

So let's review those concerns, none of which you substanaitvely responded to, and consider your own assertions, and see which is consistent with our community standards and practically beneficial in this context. You say that "we should use the tools we have to deal with [the disruption]". But if you review my comments, you'll see that one of my principal points is that we (meaning the handful of editors who happen to be engaged on this one thread on ANI) do not "have" such "tools", in that this would be an entirely novel sanction, without precedent and extending well beyond existing community consensus on the scope of sanctions and the conditions under which they are to be applied. And all of this before actual existing tools and processes have been substantially explored, not the least of which is ArbCom; and frankly I can't remember the last time I saw a case that was better suited for ArbCom, which is the one collection of users who actually are empowered by the community to extend sanctions in the manner being proposed. Implementing such a decision independent of existing conflict resolution guidelines would require much broader community discussion if we ever expected the administrative corps to enforce it. Frankly, I think it's highly unlikely that any experienced admin would effect the action being proposed here, no matter the proportion of "support" votes, exactly because of how obvious it is that this "solution" would only complicate matters further. But let's presume for a moment that one would; I can almost guarantee that the first time a user is blocked for suspected association with OMICS, even though they have not violated an existing policy, there will be at least one admin (indeed, almost assuredly a great many) who will unblock them on the basis that they actually haven't done anything wrong under existing policy and community consensus. So if you were to prevail here, all you would accomplish is to drag more admins and more users into the contention surrounding this topic, amping up the disruption to the n-th degree.

But let's even put all of that aside for a moment. Let's consider if this solution you are proposing is even in any sense workable in practice, because I can't see how it could be. For our actual and existing policies on community sanctions we have methods for establishing when a user has engaged in disruptive behaviour. If a user has violated one of our behavioural or content policies, we provide diffs to show where this misconduct took place. If a user is suspected of socking, we have checkuser and other technical tools to investigate the matter. And note that the standard for evidence in imposing sanctions in these cases is, by design fairly high. If the "misconduct" you suspect is that a given editor is associated with OMICS, how are you going to prove that? Will you just move to have every relatively new user who edits the article to reflect a positive view of the topic banned as a presumed agent of the company? You don't see it as problematic to have "the suspicion of involved editors" be the standard of proof for this new class of misconduct you would have us create here, on an ad-hoc basis applicable only this namespace? And again, you expect this to decrease disruption on the target page, even though it would certainly lead to a constant block/unblock cycle with accompanying AN/ANI discussions and who knows what other kind of voluminous community discussion on the appropriateness of these actions within the framework of our existing policies? And if this company is really determined on side-stepping policy, making a statement by banning their overt involvement isn't going to stop them; it's just going to stop them from ever having their employees reveal their association with the company when operating here, making it more difficult to track their efforts with regard to the article and leading to yet more argument on trying to determine whose actions constitute evidence for a block. How is that an improvement on the current situation? I just don't think you've thought this approach through.

And all of the above can be weighed without considering the broader questions of whether the proposed action is consistent with our principles of open collaboration and never judging them on the basis of who they are but rather solely on the nature of their contributions to the project. Those issues are of massive importance, and entire discussion and of themselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support A ban should make it easier to avoid the need to repeat obvious stuff on the talk page, and easier to block editors who mention words like "defamatory". According to the article, OMICS are seeking $1 billion in damages from a critic, so it is unlikely they will ever understand Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I find a lot of troubling editing and troubling content on OMICS Publishing Group. However, some of it has been done by the proposer of this site ban, Nomoskedasticity. The wording in the lede that he has been supporting has discarded all semblance of reasonableness and the type of content that a lede would normally contain. A lede should summarise the article's content. "The United States government have questioned the validity..." we are told boldly in the lede. Yet nothing in the content backs up such a claim. What we actually have is a trademark violation complaint by the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of the National Institutes of Health [9]. That is not the "United States government"! Yet not only is Nomoskedasticity insisting this wording is correct, he is claiming here that an objection to this obviously faulty wording amounts to an "implied legal threat". A lede would normally state what the article is about, then some undisputed facts, then what the subject of the article says it is about, and then third party opinions about that subject. But the current lede mixes everything up, mixing facts with opinions. The article is full of vague "it has been suggested" and "some observers" wording, and appears to be solely intent on piling up as much criticism of OMICS as it can find, regardless of the quality of that criticism. Any site ban for representatives of OMICS should be accompanied by an article ban for Nomoskedasticity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you are suggesting misbehaviour on my part, I think you'll need to provide diffs for the assertions you make about the editing of the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Here [[10]] is a revert that restored the "United States government" wording, and that went back to a version created by you. The edit [11] which was cited by you at the start to be an "implied legal threat" specifically complains about that wording. Here you inserted an opinion into the lede, and presented it as if it were a fact: [[12]]. You have done this many times - here is an identical revert done some months earlier [13]. You did not originate that content, but by reverting you are taking ownership of the content you restore. This was the edit that did originate it [14]. Despite this content being added by an anonymous editor, and its content going completely against Wikipedia norms, multiple editors allowed that unsatisfactory wording to remain for almost a year and some repeatedly restored it when it was removed (including Randykitty [15], [16] and Joel B. Lewis [17]). This, to me, raises questions regarding their ability to edit this article impartially. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm perfectly content to have others assess whether that edit constitutes misconduct on my part. Thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Then extend the same courtesy to others. You are wanting editors site blocked for misconduct they have not done but MIGHT do. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And who is to decide who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group", and how are they to decide it? What does "representing" mean? Why propose something that is impossible to enforce correctly? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It is impossible to enforce such a blanket ban since it is impossible to know who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group" other than by using evidence from an editor's actual edits. If such edits are at fault, there are already plenty of Wikipedia procedures in existence to deal with such problems. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Would some of the supporters of this proposal answer my points made above. How exactly do they envisage this site ban being enforced? Can they cite any past examples of such a ban proposal being accepted as an appropriate solution? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenge closure on Climate change denial talk page

I am following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE#Challenging_other_closures. I claim there is a problem with the close by User:Jess of the RFC on the Climate change denial talk page at Redirects to this page. My grounds are: Jess is "inextricably involved". Jess started the RFC here with non-neutral wording about redirecting to denial, and supported redirecting to denial here, and so it's no surprise that Jess closed with the comment "Consensus appears to support having these redirects point to climate change denial." I discussed this with Jess, see here, here, here, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You are challenging a close of an RfC that had a ratio of two to one. What point would there be undoing the close and then having someone else reclose with the exact same result? I happen to be one of those editors who think "denier" is about as wrong as letting anti-abortion groups call their opponents "anti-life" but a clear consensus is a clear consensus whether or not you and I happen to disagree with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And of course we're here... Earlier this year, climate change denial was expanded to cover "climate change skepticism" explicitly, and the relevant redirects were fixed. Reverts ensued, and discussion started at Talk:Climate change skeptic and a few other talk pages. Peter apparently wants the redirects pointed to an article which treats the topic more favorably (by not discussing it in detail), see edit summary. Peter refused to engage substantively in discussion (e.g.), but refused to let the redirects be changed ([18]). The dispute went to AE twice ([19], [20]), and there appeared to be some agreement that disruption was evident, but no action was taken. I started an RfC October 10th, advertised broadly ([21], [22], [23], [24]...), and adjusted the wording based on input ([25]). Pete objected to the RfC, claiming we should instead go back to the stalled discussion he had refused to answer questions in. When the RfC expired, and no new comments had been generated for days, consensus appeared to me to be exceptionally clear, so I implemented the changes and archived the RfC, noting that formal closure was likely not necessary ([26]). Peter then objected to my archiving the discussion, so I told him he could request formal closure if he felt it necessary ([27]). He didn't, and brought it here instead. I'm tired of this... I think enough editor time has been wasted on this nonsense.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Note, I will be away from a computer for an EMT exam for at least the next several hours.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do have somewhat of a problem, in that User:Peter Gulutzan seems determined to refuse accept the community consensus and continue to engage in WP:FORUMSHOPPING. After it was clear consensus was not behind Peter Gulutzan's position at the second CFD in a two days, he subsequently posted to WP:BLPN trying to circumvent the proper community process of category discussion. Now he has forum-shopped to here. AusLondonder (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N is a proper noticeboard for discussions concerning certain types of categorization of living persons. Collect (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not the place to object of the existence of a category because you dispute the outcome of two CFD's. Thanks. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Peter received a routine CC DS last March.[28] It is unclear to me if he has breached the DS or not, but if he has, he should be blocked. He's been at this for three years now. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Update, based on Jess' comments up above, it looks like a block is needed per DS. Three years of disruption is long enough. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Gobsmacked While there's nothing wrong with an involved editor starting an RfC to resolve a difficult question, is it really acceptable for that editor to close the RfC with her preferred outcome? And then someone who thinks this isn't quite right is threatened with a block? When I went out for a couple hours, did I return to Bizarro-pedia?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think you are a neutral admin on this issue, but you do appear to have been at it longer than Peter.[29] Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following. Why the snide comments? What do they have to do with anything? Have I called you names?--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a claim upthread that the support had a ratio of "two to one".

I count 20 editors with a bolded position. 12 expressed Support while 8 did not. That is not remotely a 2-1 margin. It means, if as few as two of those expressing support were changed to Oppose, we'd we talking 50-50. I don't know that any of those weighing in were on the fence, I am simply point out that it is closer that " two to one". I also suggested, that one editor who !voted with the simple explanation per WP:ASTONISH should be viewed as an oppose, because I think that point is better evidence for Oppose than for Support. I wouldn't literally do that if I were closing, as I know the editor, and I know their position, but if it were removed, becasue their explanation isn't consistent with their !vote, we'd be much closer to a push, which would mean you ought to have a responsible, experienced closer weighing the arguments.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

So your suggestion is that we count all the editors who didn't !vote as opposing (even though they didn't), and then switch one of the supports to an oppose against that editor's wishes because in your opinion it fits better... and then assess consensus based on vote counting... and if we do all that, we end up with something that's not quite as skewed. If you really think an uninvolved editor would assess consensus that way, I guess you could have requested a formal closure. In reality, the support votes actually do outnumber the oppose votes by 2:1, and this proposal perfectly elucidates why the current climate of this topic area makes reasoned AGF discussion practically impossible.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that wasn't my suggestion. Try rereading.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

...current climate of this topic area makes reasoned AGF discussion practically impossible. On this point, we are in complete agreement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I just rechecked my count. 12 support, 6 oppose. Does anyone other than Sphilbrick get a different count? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Folks who want to spread tales about me should start their own threads in more appropriate places. I'll only reply to statements that were made about the topic, a challenge of Jess's close. (A) Jess has said that the close was not "formal". I thought that "formal" meant going through the formalities with the templates for marking a closed discussion ("The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it" etc.). I'll leave it to an expert to decide whether Jess is right and whether it matters. (B) Jess has said that I should have asked for a close myself rather than challenging. That's impossible since Jess had aleady closed and refused to re-open by self-reverting, and in any case I am not the person who wanted a close, I was happy to let it peter out. (C) There has been no dispute that Jess is an involved editor, and no dispute that that's a criterion for a legitimate challenge according to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (D) Discussion of this matter had already taken place on Climate_change_skeptic#Centralized_discussion_plus_list_of_redirected_pages. There was no consensus. Jess decided that wasn't good enough so made this second discussion, "starting fresh". But it's possible a conscientious closer would have realized that it's the same topic and so must be taken into account, which would mean that the policy-related objections there would have been observed. By the way, by counting the editors there as well as the editors on Jess's thread, and counting editors who called for dismissal as well as editors who opposed, I get 14 versus 9 -- but admit that the strongest objector has been topic banned now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you aren't allowed to fabricate pretend votes from another discussion and apply them to an RfC as if they were RfC !votes, any more than Sphilbrick gets to turn clearly labeled support !votes to oppose !votes because he doesn't agree with the rationale. The count is 12 support, 6 oppose. The consensus is support, by a 2:1 ratio, no more, no less. The close is valid, no matter who made the close, because anyone else would have made the exact same call. It is time to drop the WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

S Philbrick's counting method is more reasonable than Guy Macon's -- editors who said this RFC should be dismissed / is improper are against the RFC's motion, and anyway the exact formal word "opposed" was not one of the options (Jess changed the RFC's wording after those comments had been made). As for my method, I counted as not in favour of changing the redirect: Ssscienccce Markbassett Philbrick Morphh JaykeBird Gulutzan Capitalismojo Connolley Tillman (9), tell me which of these is supposedly fabricated and I will supply a diff. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a nice fantasy world you created; it would be a shame if something might happen to it, such as reality intruding into it for just a bit. Let's see, Tillman was indefinitely banned from the CC topic in August, yet you feel his opinion from before that ban should apply to an RfC held in October. Are you feeling okay? You are way over the edge here. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support climate change topic ban for Peter Gulutzan based on the above nonsense (whether rooted in incompetence or deliberate disruption) that is incompatible with editing Wikipedia. I would support it for Sphilbrick as well but since the community elected him as an admin, he's automatically immune and exempt from all policies that regular editors must follow. Some editors are more equal than others. Oink. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Lembrazza and categories

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

---

The edits of Lembrazza (talk · contribs) mainly concern adding categories to articles. While some are helpful, a lot of these are original research, creating Category: Action thriller video games and Category: Science fiction action video games. They have been warned repeatedly for ignoring guidelines, usually not responding to warnings. A final warning has been issued for removing deletion tags on two categories they have created. Since then, they are back to it, claiming Age of Ultron is an "action thriller". I tried reasoning, but to no avail. Transformers isn't called a science fiction adventure once throughout the entire article, but still they've added it to the category. It's getting really hard to assume good faith at this point, because Lembrazza does barely communicate, and when they do, apparently I should read more about Wikipedia. --Soetermans. T / C 11:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Categories for the most part (except BLP issues) are uncontentious means of sorting articles. Speaking to videogames - if someone wants to find science fiction action games, then there doesnt need to be a source describing it as such if its obvious. I would want something to source 'Age of Ultron' as a 'thriller' however, as that is... easily arguable. If you dont think the categories are worth keeping, nominate them at CFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that Lembrazza's edits and attitude will have to change. I already have nominated the categories, but still they aren't following guidelines, which why I'm here. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well firstly you have not actually said what guideline he is violating - generally a requirement if you want someone to be sanctioned. Secondly guidelines are not 'must be obeyed' policy - they can, and are, ignored in many cases. Thirdly if the categories are removed via CFD this discussion is a waste of time. Granted I think you are right with regards to his film categories, not to mention his grasp of sourcing - but to be fair, reliable sources are rarely demanded for categories except where adding the category would be contentious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There's guidelines like WP:CATDEF, WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH and ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaphs I'm not making myself clear, it's not about a couple of unnecessary categories that they've created, it's that they have been issued quite a few warnings about their attitude and so far has not changed it a bit. Did you take a glance at their edit history by any chance? Game of Thrones isn't "widely considered" an adventure series. Because the main characters are space criminals, Guardians of the Galaxy can't be a "superhero film?". When they didn't get their way with their own category, an edit summary reads "If games can't be thrillers or sci-fi actions, they can't be horror either". Monica Belluci can't be called an actor, because this is not "femenistpedia". They have also moved articles a couple of times, without consensus or rationale, like Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, FIFA 16, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII (remake) twice. Perhaps @ChamithN:, @The1337gamer:, @Dohvahkiin: or @PresN: can say something about their experiences with Lembrazza. --Soetermans. T / C 18:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I've come across him lately. But if I do, I'll let you know.Dohvahkiin (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Haven't interacted with him much, other than him drifting across pages that I watch; the Final Fantasy 6 and Final Fantasy 7 page moves were pretty poorly thought out (and obviously wrong), I felt, and the FIFA 16 -> FInal Fantasy 16 page move outright vandalism. Other than that, while I find his category additions to not be useful or backed by consensus, I've long since given up on categories; I don't find a made-up movie genre category to be any worse than Category:Masks in fiction, and somehow that continues to float around. --PresN 19:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like Lembrazza is trying to prove a point here. First he categorized vast amount of video games articles as "Action thriller video games" and "Science fiction action video games" which are not even video gamer genres. When these two categories were nominated for deletion he tried to override the deletion by simply removing the category entries on the CFD, rather than trying to reach a consensus. Subsequently he moved on to categorize some movies as "Science fiction adventure films", which is also a category created by him. Most of these movies he categorized have not been described as "science fiction adventure films" in the article or elsewhere. As WP:CATDEF says categorizations should be defined commonly and consistently by reliable sources. The ambiguity in Lembrazza's categorizations has been pointed out multiple times on his talk page. I don't know whether it has been effective or not as he hasn't edited in 2 days. -- Chamith (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that Lembrazza is again removing CFD postings that Soetermans made, seen here and here. It's also getting very uncivil at Soetermans' talk page. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Gave a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Widefox

The above-mentioned user criticized my conflict on Irvington, New York, and then began hounding me on issues of my conflicts of interest (see his talk and COIN). His recent tricks include editing Wikipedia's policies, directly, with very little discussion, and then telling me I'm not following those policies he just created. He's also making up his own interpretation of the Terms of Use to mean that every single edit I make to any talk page, main page, or sandbox should include that I'm an editor with a COI and that I should link my disclosure. That's ridiculous, something no COI editor has ever done or should ever have to do. They should only need to disclose it on their userpage, once on the COI article's talk page and whenever editing the COI article directly (discouraged). He's also been changing the rules to ban putting your disclosure on a subpage of your userspace, something I saw no problem with, as long as it's well linked. Please help me out here. Please address his hounding as well, I feel he should be penalized for that as the policy suggests, his harassment of me over all my work is overbearing and simply awful. Thank you.

My work isn't perfect, if you want to bring that up here, go ahead. It's impossible to cross every 't' and thus Widefox has pointed out a few places where I could do better in being a COI editor. Please note that I'm still very new to this, as bound to make mistakes as a first-year prep cook. However note that I've been involved on Wikipedia for a relatively long time. I've gotten to know most rules, except maybe not as many as others of similar age; I try to stick with content creation. I like writing Good Articles, and I'm honestly very proud to have written two FAs. That's where my enjoyment in Wikipedia stems from, not these tendentious discussions or editing under conflicts of interest. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am uninvolved in any article or dispute, and initially just warned both edit warring parties.

The accusation of hounding was made here User_talk:Widefox#Your recent edits and was challenged to provide evidence three times, even pointing out that it can't be hounding per my "concerns over your editing" in WP:DWH. Just now another editor said to remove that warning from Ɱ as unfounded [30].

Ɱ should be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG of paid editing disclosure. Summary at WP:COIN#Ɱ - it would be much simpler if User:Ɱ just disclosed per the WP:TOU, as laid out in the best practice WP:PAID#How to disclose (and links).

Latest summary is [31] at WP:COIN#Ɱ (where yes I even state that as I've emergency edited the policy to make it comply with the ToU, I'm quoting other editors about Ɱ's compliance level, not mine - which is characterised by other editors - as outrageous to hide it.)

Background is the with need to disclose "all contributions" (we are only talking about paid editing) "any paid contributions" per ToU Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:COI declaration (Ɱ's misguided use of this outdated essay is helping us prevent others be misguided by it - by deleting it), Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Disclosure contradiction, WP:COI#Paid editors (history of WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY, specifically [32]), Template_talk:Connected_contributor_(paid)#Drafts etc,.

There's agreement from others (will ping them only if needed) to ensure WP:PAID complies with ToU with no dissent, and scrutiny of several creators/admins/other editors (see those talk pages).

In summary, yes the policy is more explicit, but [33] summarises what others say about Ɱ's old (and current) collapsed (hidden) disclosure. Widefox; talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate a more cohesive answer; it's very hard for me to follow. The evidence that you are hounding me is simple. Look at the edit history for my talk page. Look through all of it; I removed most due to your illegal harassment over my work. You first criticized my handling of the Irvington issues, and then went on to criticize my handling of my COI articles. That is hounding. Read the definition, especially at the bottom where it says it could lead to blocks. The editor who called it 'unfounded' had no involvement in any of these issues, was not directed to where the discussions were taking place, and simply was stating my warning to not include details backing it up. Also don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. Cease and desist.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. It would be appreciated if there was a bit more clarity about the problem. The COI issue was raised at WP:COIN with regard to edits by User:Ɱ to Interactive Brokers, an article which read too much like a brochure. I removed some promotional material (a list of features) from that article, added some material about some litigation, and considered the problem solved.[34] That was four days ago, no one has objected to those edits, and that does not seem to be the issue. Over at Irvington, New York, there's been some edit warring there over bold text vs. headings between Ɱ and Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs).[35] Widefox has only one recent edit to that article, and it's trivial.[36]. Ɱ is drafting a paid article about some musician in a sandbox, but that only becomes a COI problem if they try to publish it. There's lots of argument on various talk and noticeboard pages, but few diffs. I've been reading notice boards and talk page histories for ten minutes and still can't figure out the underlying issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle: I can clarify. The original list of features was in the article long before I started editing the draft. I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable. You're incorrect, I had objected to those edits similar to how I am now. I'd like to reiterate that the Irvington conflict was not 'edit warring'; I explained this in great depth to Widefox on my talk page. Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth. I honestly won't be surprised if he starts to criticize some of my volunteer article writing here too. I haven't been providing diffs because most of this is talk page discussion, most of which is still live on the talk pages; therefore it should all be follow-able. Also most discussion has involved several edits making up one reply, so it's much easier to direct you to the relevant pages (here, COIN, my talk, Widefox's talk, and WP:PAID (Widefox, am I missing some?)). ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think some of my comment got lost here; I'm going to restore the comments on my talk page for everyone's ease of access for assessment. I removed them (within user rights) previously due to harassment; they consisted of Widefox's repeated criticism of several different works of mine. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 07:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ɱ, I repeat John Nagle's comment - what's the actual hounding. Do you have any evidence at all - diffs? I've asked that 3 or 4 times on my talk and I'm still waiting an answer, days went past and another editor said to remove your unfounded hounding accusation. Ɱ, further you still haven't answered that as this is just my "concerns over your editing" per WP:DWH, so it is not hounding. (John Nagle - just to inform you, the ToU state that "all paid contributions" must be disclosed, not just articles.)

Nobody has edited the ToU, hardly "tricks". But, a paid editing disclosure that isn't visible (hidden in a collapsed at User:Ɱ) is exactly that - WP:LAWYERING. Other editors agree that disclosure is unacceptable. So far, I've resisted a call to take Ɱ to ANI over this [37].

"illegal harassment" really should not be used above [38] per WP:LEGAL. I'm increasingly concerned that User:Ɱ has attempted to contact me offwiki - I've asked what for and don't have an answer. What for Ɱ? Now there's legal accusations. I'm just a volunteer, and Ɱ should not hide their paid editing disclosure on their user page. It's that simple. My concern over Ɱ's editing is not a LEGAL issue per WP:LEGAL#Conflict_of_interest. Attempts to get me "banned" are just that - all heat and no light.

Do I have to put up with this [39] ? That is specifically WP:LEGAL combined with unspecified offwiki communication [40]. Please can this be addressed as it now sits uncomfortably with me. Widefox; talk 08:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "contact me offwiki"? Is there a specific comment that makes you believe Ɱ attempted something offwiki? If so, please link to the section and quote some text to allow it to be found. Re Ɱ's "illegal harassment" remark above: that is probably just clumsy English. The claim appears to be that Widefox harassed Ɱ, and harassment is not permitted = against the rules = illegal (incorrect terminology). I don't see any evidence to support the claim of harassment other than the sweeping claim that inspecting the history of User talk:Ɱ will reveal all. That history shows Widefox posted 15 times on the page in just under 24 hours, starting on 6 November 2015, and with no other edits in the last year. It is hard to see how that isolated burst of activity could be regarded as harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Johnuniq Ɱ did attempt offwiki communication - email. I don't know what for - I asked "You tried to contact me offwiki - why?" [41], Ɱ refers to the offwiki attempt here "how is 'attempted off-wiki communication' not allowed?..." [42]. Widefox; talk 09:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Again I repeat: "Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth." These aren't normal concerns over my editing. Right after getting into a confrontation with me, you specifically looked through my work, found I was a COI editor, and proceeded to attempt to have me conform to your wishes, with you going so far as to write policies to accuse me of not following. "Illegal" is a word that means "not legal" or "not following legislation"; "not following the rules". Therefore harassment is illegal here on Wikipedia. I did give you an answer about trying to contact you off-wiki. I'd like to sort things out, and better methods of communication usually help. There is nothing against me doing that, so stop pretending there is. You've made an issue of that as if I'm breaking some terrible law a few times now. As for "hiding my paid editing disclosure"; for so long, any user could so easily find it on my talk page, so prominently linked. Nobody's ever had a problem with that. Now I've got it on my signature and main userpage. When is enough enough? Would you like me to bold, italicize, and highlight it in red in font size 80 at the very top of my userpage? Johnuniq - as I said, read my (now restored) talk page. After he criticized me for Irvington, he's now WP:HOUNDING me over the COI pages and my disclosure. I feel harrassed. There's no written textual or other evidence to that, unless you'd like to read my thoughts of "I really want to quit this whole project, I try really hard to do good solid work and this user keeps 'assaulting' me with different policies, guidelines, essays, and even the ToU that I'm apparently breaking. I'm sick of this". Please read the details of hounding. Such pursual of criticizing me and my work is a bannable offense. It's written right there, why can't anybody follow Wikipedia's rules and at least look into Widefox's widespread accusations? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 09:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Harrias (talk · contribs) stated "As you have accepted, you [Widefox] have been instrumental in recent changes at WP:PAID, to tighten the guideline, and Ɱ does appear to fall short of the current text. However, as that has only been in place for a day or two, and by your own admission (here), "we've got limited consensus here", I think it is over the top to expect Ɱ to have been adhering to those guidelines, particularly as you are referring to events that occured before you even changed them." "until your edits to it on 6 November, after the start of this discussion, it was not explicit that it [the COI disclosure] must be visible". Please read through these statements. Don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 09:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note I am very busy right now in real life. I'll have limited replies here over the next day or two.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 09:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has edited the ToU. Why all this heat, when you can just fix your hidden disclosure on your userpage? I'm waiting for an answer from Harrias (talk · contribs) "it was not explicit that it must be visible" - factually correct yes, do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK? Want to get another opinion on that LAWYERING?! [43] . As you bring it up here, that's waiting for a reply from Harrias. Widefox; talk 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) What's waiting for a reply. Never stated you edited it. Don't want to, and I should have the right not to. And yes, having a drop-down (in your words, "invisible" (huh?)) should be just fine! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We go by consensus here - what have other editors said about your hidden disclosure? This is WP:BOOMERANG as nobody agrees with you that this is harassment, and everyone who's commented agrees your hidden disclosure is not acceptable and should be fixed. You were unwise to bring here, rather than the slower pace of COIN. Widefox; talk 10:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Um, I count zero uninvolved editors here who are telling me to remove the drop-down. I count zero uninvolved editors who have even looked into this hounding issue in depth, as you keep steering away from it. What all of this shows me is this conversation still needs an abundance of third parties before we go around declaring who should change what. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Case in point, this is an administrator's noticeboard and yet not one administrator has commented yet. Hold your horses.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Indignant walls of text are very hard to follow. To show harassment, just post a couple of diffs. I don't know where the comment by Harrias occurred so I can't see the context, but taking a wild guess, the comment appears to miss the fact that the Terms of Use are not something written on a page at enwiki, and certainly were not written by Widefox, nor were they written a day or two ago. As a rule of thumb, someone with a COI who has complied with the letter and spirit of the ToU would post a very short note saying the information is clearly on their user page, so there is no problem. Did that occur? Was there any (claimed) harassment after that? Or, is the situation that compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step, where each step required significant comment by others? Please stop talking about "illegal"—one of the very few places that term arises in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is at WP:NLT which says that editors who hint they may pursue legal action against another editor are indefinitely blocked (people take legal action because they believe something "illegal" has happened).

Re the comment by Widefox at 09:50, 12 November 2015 above: Ɱ is obviously correct that the "email this user" function may be used (if each party has enabled email); if "contact me offwiki" means you received an email sent by that function, I fail to see the problem because responding to it is entirely voluntary. Please don't use code words suggesting some nefarious activity if what you are talking about is "email this user". Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What the terms of use actually say is:

"You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."

I have statements on the talk pages accompanying. That appeases (for lack of a better word this late) the Terms of Use. So my user page statement (and signature link) is a bonus, a goodwill effort on my part to tell users of my affiliations. I could blank all of my userspace right now and still be okay under the Terms of Use. I don't think Widefox or Johnuniq got this earlier, so I hope this explanation helps. Wikipedia's policies should not have been adjusted any stricter than the above statement. Widefox is out of line.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I second what Johnuniq said. Please provide diffs that show Widefox has committed "illegal harassment." —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Diff 1 (of Widefox warning me for "edit warring"). Diff 2 (him starting a discussion on my "edit warring"). Diff 3 (me informing him I wasn't edit warring). Diff 4 (him further reprimanding my "wrongdoing"). Diff 5 (him completely changing topics, after seeing my COI disclosure wasn't on my main userpage). Diff 6 (me telling him this unprovoked and unrelated criticism is unnacceptable per WP:HOUNDING). Then the conversations went on, on that talk page. And spread to the above-mentioned pages, to here.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 11:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, he added tags to these three pages that I believe constitutes hounding. It's also a completely inappropriate use of the tag, as he put them all on the articles immediately as a notice that I'm involved (even though I already 'tagged' the article talk pages) and never even critiqued their content once. He was simply putting a marker on the articles I contributed to, which reminds me of the barbaric historical marking to indicate a lesser entity, as was done to several groups in the 1930s and 40s.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 11:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq yes technically, but just because I had left my email on accidentally (to get library permissions) doesn't mean I'm inviting COIs to email me. I choose not to interact offwiki - e.g. would you want this COI [44] in your email? I'm still waiting for Ɱ to say what they wanted to say offwiki. And yes, it is "compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step" - moving the disclosure to the userpage - but it was still collapsed (I see only after ANI it had been unhidden), initially stating drafts weren't covered and then in protest disclosing them on the draft talk (while still stating it wasn't needed). ToU is clear "all paid contributions". I double checked with others and they agreed it covers drafts. Ɱ has consistently tried to close down discussion of their disclosure. Part of that is reasonable, certainly the timeframe is, and our wording was a mess which needed emergency repair as it was weaker than the ToU (which we are not allowed to do). I fixed that in passing. Ɱ was following an outdated essay. I MfDd that. At all places I've pinged the authors etc. This can all be handled at COIN, rather than here. I've consistently said I consider Ɱ good faith. In fact, I felt for Ɱ in the initial edit warring, but treated both parties equally. I welcome scrutiny as I am proud of fixing these things, but have only done them in passing as they fell short of the ToU. The ToU is clear. Is an hidden (collapsed) disclosure allowed by the ToU? There's agreement that it must be visible, and that should be explicit in our guidance. Ɱ brought this here, before doing that, and didn't reply to my request to provide harassment evidence until ANI.

Note that Ɱ's disclosure can't be seen in the history of User:Ɱ as the disclosure is still not on the user page, it is in User:Ɱ/u (and conditionally displayed at the user page depending on date or something from looking at the code). I hadn't even realised this until now - technically it isn't "a statement on your user page," more like "a statement that may (or may not) be displayed on the user page Ɱ". (or ‎Widefox; talk 12:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Widefox leaving you the edit warring warning, and then trying to explain it to you. Reverting someone twice indicates you are in an edit war. Some people do not know of the 3RR rule and a template warning is perfectly appropriate. I fail to see any hounding or harassment. Often if you see suspected problematic behavior from an editor, further problematic behavior is discovered when you take a look at the account. If Widefox looked at your account and saw something he felt violated guidelines, that does not qualify as wikihounding. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and I used the correct edit war template rather than 3RR template (and explain that difference Diff 4 adding "the incivility on the other edit war party is unacceptable but that's not for your page"). Checking a COI while seeing problematic editing is due diligence in my book. Ɱ - did you even read how none of this is harassment per WP:DWH "civil and appropriate" like I've told you several times? Widefox; talk 13:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The COI tags on 3 articles are easily explained - I was concerned about them, but the amount of volunteer time it's taken to get Ɱ disclose meant that I didn't get back to those articles! The COI tags were removed within minutes [45] and I wasn't going to edit war over them...the next edit User:Nagle [46] added advert tag, so hardly controvercial. Scrutiny was good. COI editing here was promotional, and I'm finding reaction to that normal message agressive. Fix the issues, not complain about the messenger! COIs are allowed to remove the tag, but they really should refrain from directly editing articles when uninvolved editors object. Nagle's cleanup was objected to, so this borders WP:OWN. Widefox; talk 15:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) Respectfully, I'll wait for an administrator to tell me you were within rights at such investigation and inquisition. It's too unreasonable; I still haven't even fully resolved the Irvington issue, nonetheless all of this! Widefox, if you're still waiting for me to tell you what I wanted to say off-wiki, then it's pretty clear you're ignoring my comments. I stated it twice already, I'm sick of explaining myself over and over. The Terms of Use describing contributions only pertains to the mainspace, the live area that readers will see. Anything else would be ridiculous and unnecessary. However you disagree and already enacted on that, but seriously, a formal discussion and vote must be made. You cannot serve as sole arbitrator here. Stop calling my work promotional, I didn't even add the products section. I hardly touched it. Some neutral editor probably thought it was a good idea and I'm not a deletionist, I'll respect that editor's decision. Look at the article's history, it's existed in some form since 2006, long before I even started editing. People were okay with it for almost 10 years. Also, the idea of my COI disclosure not being on my userpage is garbage, sorry. I use a mirror so vandals don't edit my userpage. Common practice. The text always is the same, "a mirror never lies". The content may not be in the edit window, but it's on the userpage for all to see. I'm so sick of you trying all these loopholes and workarounds on me. Though your language is civil enough that everyone else has overlooked it, your bugging me over every issue, your twisting of policies and manipulation of a few select editors to seeing your vantage point; it's all far too overbearing. Even if an administrator thinks it wasn't hounding before, they really should know it is now. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the edit warring at Irvington, New York is over a formatting issue of bolding vs. a subhead.[47]. This is petty. Please drop the stick. Someone else will clean it up if necessary. As for Interactive Brokers, Ɱ writes above "I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable". So after the admitted paid editor consults with the people who pay him, he can put an edit request on the talk page. Is there anything else? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes John, I'd like to see this action:

1. consensus (and wording) is ToU covers "all paid contributions". Ɱ's claim above "only pertains to the mainspace" is against consensus. This issue will not go away as it is a legal requirement to edit on WP. (excuse bold, but this is bold if ever there is a use of bold!) Ɱ's statement above attempts to diminish the scope of the ToU (which we are not legally allowed to do), and indicates that Ɱ doesn't feel bound by the ToU or consensus. As such a normal escalation process should start when going against consensus or refusing to abide by the ToU until agreeing to comply with both. (we are seeing this WP:IDHT with several paid editors, and warning templates are currently being written). Per WP:PAYTALK this is disruption, so:

1.1 suggest L3 or L4 warning to be given to Ɱ for disruption (not including wasting everyone's time here over a bogus ANI) and refusal to be bound by full terms of ToU. If not agreeing to fully comply with ToU within a reasonable time, suggest next stage would be 24 hr block etc. I do not rule out an initial 24 hr block due to simply stating they don't feel bound by the legal terms of ToU (which must at some point be enforced by volunteers, then WMF).

2. The userpage User:Ɱ does not have a disclosure on it. Fact. Userpage was last editing 8 March 2015. There is a disclosure on User:Ɱ/u which is sometimes (but not necessarily always) programmatically displayed when viewing that userpage (no popups, no history, no indexing, with the right browser, and other limitations and dependencies such as the right date/other files?!). Ɱ has no disclosure on their user page

2.1 The ToU states one on any of three places so as long as there's disclosure on "all paid contribution" talk pages, that isn't a problem per the ToU. However, best practice (policy/guideline) states to additionally put a disclosure "on" the "main user page". Suggest holding Ɱ to best practice, in a reasonable timeframe (not urgent).

3. Agree with John Nagle suggestion, Ɱ abides by COI best practice - does not directly edit articles with a COI, and uses (paid) COI edit requests. Widefox; talk 11:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

None of these three (five) points requires administrator action. I think this can be closed at ANI now: Widefox is pursuing a COI issue, and there is a relevant thread at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Widefox's actions, while dedicated, don't cross the line. Ɱ has made clear efforts to adhere to COI requirements, though there are some areas in which things have not been as clear as they should, but I don't believe a block is warranted. Harrias ^talk 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Harrias, WP:PAYTALK does require admin action IMHO. This is a hundreds of lines of PAYTALK (multiple venues), and we are specifically not meant to do this, and I'd like to see a warning for disruption be given before thread is closed, else due to the legal implications above, I will feel obliged to start a new ANI thread, and I'd really like to get off ANI. Widefox; talk 11:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Warnings do not have to be given by administrators. Nevertheless, can you provide diffs for the PAYTALK issues; I would suggest doing so under a subheading of this thread for clarity, and ease of reading! Harrias ^talk 11:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, will do. (Also, the ToU enforcement, unless I'm mistaken is a new responsibility for volunteers (admins, non-admins). WMF is not policing unless escalated to. My logic is - if someone is explicitly stating at ANI that they are not bound by the letter and spirit of the ToU despite consensus at multiple locations, then what is the suggested escalation path? A procedural issue due to it already being here at ANI (rather than being at the right place of COIN) Widefox; talk 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) I could argue so many points here. Harrias and Widefox are wrong in so many ways. I'm tired of addressing them. If another editor or administrator wants to address faults in the above statements, feel free. Apparently I'm not violating any guidelines or policies, so I'd like Widefox and Harrias to stop any accusations. I would like an administrator to step in. Regardless of the wording at WP:HOUNDING that editors like Widefox can always weasel their way around, as Louis CK was known to say: "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." I would also like recent edits to WP:PAID reverted as they lack widespread consensus, which is essential. See WP:PGBOLD. Not a single COI editor was involved in these decisions, making the discussion rather one-sided (not consensus). ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 08:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is WP:IDHT / WP:PAYTALK with the ToU scope, and not having any disclosure on your userpage (it is on a subpage) is not best practice. Consensus about this was over a week ago. When requesting changes to WP:PAID be aware that per WP:COI (and now WP:PAID) you should disclose your COI / paid COI respectively. This WP:PAYTALK just goes on. As for providing diffs, the discussions are linked above and at COIN. I will post the many diffs... Widefox; talk 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your insertion of links everywhere in the above message is muddling your meaning. Regardless "best practice" sounds like an opinion-based statement. I will follow policies and guidelines, I will not follow what a random collective of editors wants to impose upon me without clear consensus and without establishing a formal, written rule. Written rules were historically established so people would be able to know when they are and are not following them, and what the punishment is for not following them. An unwritten rule like a "best practice" does not have that given. Thus, if you want to change things, request edits to policies and guidelines through the proper channels. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

PAYTALK

• Disruptive editing: WP:PAYTALK.
• WP:PAID has been editted by the paid COI editor User:Ɱ without disclosure in the edit or talk [48]. It was undone by another editor. This is against WP:COI and WP:PAID (and possibly WP:TOU). Widefox; talk 13:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect. As I disclose in my disclosure I am only paid to write the article on Shiner and improve the IB articles and Thomas Peterffy's. My edits anywhere else are as a volunteer, and thus have absolutely no relevance to WP:COI or WP:PAID, and do not need a COI disclosure!--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

People who have a financial interest in a policy or guideline should not be editing that guideline ever. To do so without noting they have a financial interest is inexcusable. In this case the edit was to make a change in the disclosure requirements for discussing changes in that very policy. Based on what I read about Ɱ's issues with disclosure at WP:COIN I can not AGF here and presume they are here to advance their own and/or others' financial interests. Jbh^Talk 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an opinion that may be valid and agreeable, however it is an opinion. Please cite a policy. It highly disturbs me that you "presume [I] am here to advance [my] own and other's interests". I have been editing as a volunteer longer than you. I have created Good Articles, Featured Articles, and Featured Lists. I have a TFA. I have many DYKs. I have researched endlessly about topics I've later created articles on. I've written templates. I've removed so many cases of vandalism. I've taken hundreds of photos and uploaded them to Commons. I've scanned archives into Commons. I've served as an active Wikipedian in Residence. I've been to and even organized and hosted Wikipedia events. Most of that information should be evident if you do enough digging. So for you to plainly state I'm here to support some company I worked for two summers ago or one artist I wrote a page about, both of whom paid me, is pure ignorance. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is all quite wonderful, you should fully understand why volunteers want to know if someone has a financial interest in policy discussions or in edits being made to either articles or contributions to discussions. Even if all of your edits are perfect in all ways we are writing policy and enforcing guidelines for those who are not all sweetness and light. From the behavior I have seen from you here I do not see a Wikipedian who has spent years building the project I see one which is trying to do the absolute minimum to comply with the disclosure requirements when we are just getting a handle on how to keep people from exploiting this project for financial gain. That behavior from any editor is something I will condemn. Jbh^Talk 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Ɱ Removed their paid editing disclosure completly from being visible on User:Ɱ (by removing it in User:Ɱ/u [49]), then an hour later
2. Ɱ Edited WP:PAID without disclosing they are (or have been) a paid editor [50], undone [51] per WP:COI / WP:PAID. This is highly improper that a paid editor 1. edits the paid editing policy, 2. doesn't disclose a COI, and 3. worse of all made an edit to reduce the disclosure when editing the policy itself - the exact thing they are doing! This is a COI editor reducing the need to disclose a COI on a COI policy. It's past bold and reckless, past AGF, it is subverting policy. Widefox; talk 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Ɱ has removed all paid editing disclosures from their user page User:Ɱ with this edit [52] (the one that was actually never put on their user page but on a subpage User:Ɱ/u, but was sometimes visible from the user page). This is against best practice per WP:PAID WP:COI and (although if technically meeting ToU) is WP:POINT disruption.
  • Hundreds of lines of ANI, COIN, PAID talk pages this is not best practice<-->outrageous = consensus. Per WP:PAYTALK."Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. ..."
    • "...WP:Tendentious editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID
    • "...WP:Disruptive editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID, attempt at minimising review of drafts [53], ad nauseam claiming ToU doesn't apply to XYZ, COI doesn't apply to XYZ, not abiding by best practice and consensus about disclosure at PAID, COI x2
    • "...WP:WikiBullying...": Unsubstantiated hounding claim i.e. this ANI, attempt at offwiki communication (my email now off)
    • "...WP:OWN...": Weak (per above / COIN)
    • "...WP:Civility...": no

Editor has disclosed they are still in contact with the subject of paid editing articles to justify content that was deemed promo (per above). Widefox; talk 00:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, you are way out of line.

• Bullet point one: PAYTALK is not relevant. I have not been paid to argue with anyone. As my disclosure clearly states, I'm only paid to edit four mainspace articles. I can provide evidence from Shiner that he's paying me for the article, and evidence from IB that I was only paid the summer before last, long before any of these "arguments". Ergo, PAYTALK has no relevance here. This point is moot.

1. I am allowed to remove my disclosure from my userpage. That's completely within my rights. This point is moot.
2. You cannot accuse me of not following a policy you instituted, without consensus, yesterday. This point is moot.
3. (the double bullet points) Again, I am allowed to remove COI disclosures. Policies only require COI disclosure on the article talk pages, which I have. This point is moot. The WP:POINT argument is also moot, my edits are WP:NOTPOINTy as they are not disrupting Wikipedia.
4. You need to make a more clear and concise argument for your last bullet point with the five sub-bullets.

• As for your last point, I see no reason why you brought it up again. That's not against the rules...

Can we please wait for administrators to sort out this mess? I'm tired of all of these accusations getting thrown back and forth. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• What remedy should be applied? It is outrageous that Ɱ can wikilawyer (18:47, 15 November 2015 above) that they are only paid to write certain articles so it is fine if they edit WP:PAID. They could make a case for their edit on its talk, but aggressively forcing their "rights" on volunteers needs to be stopped. Volunteers are motivated to defend the encyclopedia and it is important that the community prevent such volunteers from being overwhelmed with nonsense from paid advocates. A suitable remedy might start with an indefinite block for Ɱ until they agree to restore a plain disclosure on User:Ɱ (not a subpage) with no obfuscations. We're talking about ToU violations and disruption, not violation of a policy Widefox may have edited. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is so out of line! They make written rules so people can know what to do and what not to do! I have been following all rules, before Widefox began changing the rules! You cannot block or ban me for me trying to argue my own case! And you can't block or ban me for not putting a COI disclosure on my userpage! Nowhere, at all, in any policy or guideline must a user place a COI disclosure on their userpage! (So long as they have it on the article talk pages, which I do)! This is simply outrageous! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would support that. I have no tolerance for paid editors trying to do the minimum. If they are not disclosing in all places they are not being up front. The user page is needed so when people see suspicions edits they can quickly see if the editor has been paid. The article talk page disclosures are necessary to know who has a paid COI, if fact all COI editors must disclose on the talk page not their user page so paid editors do not get a pass there. Disclosure of paid edits are needed if they are not made on the article because others should not have to go searching beyond the discussion at hand to see if an editor has a paid-COI.

  The purpose of disclosing paid-COI is so other editors know there is a COI so they can take it into account. Anything that makes it harder to do so is fundamentally deceptive and after paid editor has been told this it is willful deception and we just can not have that here. Jbh^Talk 01:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

PER the ToU and WP:PAID, I am not required to put a COI disclosure on my userpage. No policy requires it. Therefore I can choose not to, and I do. If you want me to, there will be no convincing unless you change WP:PAID. Keep in mind that per the ToU that requires approved by the [English Wikipedia] community and [listing] in the alternative disclosure policy page. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The question here at ANI, is when and at what point is an admin going to step in and stop this disruption. Ɱ's edit of PAID is a bright-line for me. I have no faith in Ɱ now, and per Johnuniq second third an indef block, topic ban on COI / PAID. I'm sure there's an essay, the fallacy that Ɱ seems to now be holding on to is a right to edit here while WIKILAWYERing, disrupting, following just the letter of the ToU, ignoring consensus and other policies/guidelines such as COI, and subverting policy. This fallacy can be quickly demonstrated as incorrect. Widefox; talk 02:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:PAID which is a English Wikipedia's policy implementing the ToU. "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries."}}(emp mine) Seems pretty clear to me. Jbh^Talk 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we've had to be explicit with that wording due to this WIKILAWYERing example, but in fairness to Ɱ, because of that fact we can't really hold Ɱ to those words. We can hold Ɱ to ToU, COI, consensus, (plus that new wording once assessed/bedded down), PAYTALK etc. Just to be clear - that's about the only thing I agree with them on. Widefox; talk 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: user page has finally been edited, but still no disclosure [54]. Widefox; talk 11:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment No user should ever edit a policy or guideline particularly where they would benefit from such a change. It's akin to changing legislation to make legal what was previously illegal. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "particularly"? Surely, it must be possible to edit them in other cases when you do not benefit: it's a wiki, although of course (and as the hatnotes say), policy and guideline pages are subject to a higher level of scrutiny and consensus standards than other pages. LjL (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the arguments made by Widefox, JBH and Blackmane. removing COI notice from Ɱ 's main page does not help transparency and looks deceptive, editing a policy whose change would benefit them from such a change is COI par excellence.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment For what it's worth, Ɱ's user page now says "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak." I suggest closing out this issue for now. If Ɱ comes back and does something annoying, there will be little argument about what to do. WP:DENY and WP:ROPE apply here. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix resigned

FYI, for those involved with/following the saga.[55] Kelly ^hi! 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix's userpage is apparently fully protected - someone should probably semi it so Neelix himself can edit it, and also should remove the administrator userbox and cat. Kelly ^hi! 20:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ordinarily I would ask the user to remove it but Neelix has indicated he's on a long wikibreak. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he will get off with only losing admin tools and the imposed 1 year ban on redirect creation. I feel broad topic bans are in order as well. Oh well. If/when he comes back I'm sure his edits will be closely watched. Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Commentary isn't needed

What a convenient time to go on a Wikibreak!, Wouldn't be surprised if he returns in a week or 2 once it's all over!. –Davey2010Talk 20:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC) This is a good selling point for attracting new RFA candidates: "Come one, come all, step right up and become an admin! You too will be able to do whatever you want without any consequences! Forget about those lowly lusers who we can block for no reason and site ban for less! Become an admin and avoid blocks for bad behavior and even get the option to resign your tools without having the community do it for you! That's right, step right up and get appointed for life, all eternity folks! Can you find a better deal anywhere else? Offer may not apply to cats or dogs in Norway or Sweden. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC) You know, there really isn't a need to kick dirt on Neelix at this point. Arbcom still has a case and I do hope they consider taking it to make some statement about admin accountability but your comments make it seem like people are out with pitchforks at this point. Do you propose a block nevertheless? Seems unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Except my criticism focuses solely on the long term pattern of admin abuse. Please put your tired old pitchfork canard away for good. In the real world, people who are elected to a position for life are known as tyrants. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) He no longer has the bit. If the abuse (I don't know enough about it) is an issue, then you have a point. I don't see what snide remarks does other than make you look childish here but that's just me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC) "even get the option to resign your tools without having the community do it for you" - not giving admins the option to resign from their position, now that would be pretty unreasonable. LjL (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Really unpleasant pile on behaviours here. Nasty, vicious, disgusting. He's nto currently editing (and it's not surprising after the kicking he got here over the past few days.) I hope Arbcom says something about the revolting ANI comments. What he did was inexcusable and stupid and horrible, but the gleeful poking and kicking is shameful. 82.132.223.135 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Who are you, anonymous editor who appeared from nowhere using a static IP? BMK (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC) No matter who they are, they're expressing a sentiment that a few people, including I who motioned to have Neelix indefinitely blocked, share at this point. Well, perhaps not in the exact terms expressed, but, I would WP:DROPTHESTICK since there is a case open, Neelix has taken steps to avoid further disruption, and he's no longer an admin which was the main problem with "loss of community trust". We're basically done here, really. LjL (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, ArbCom has moved to close the case without action: see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Proposed decision#Motion to close case. Mz7 (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And that's how you weasel out of a bollocking, kids. Remember this for future use. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Lugnuts, I don't rightly know what to say here. I wanted ArbCom to desysop Neelix, because I think that helps created a sense of justice. I don't like the piling on (now hatted), but I understand the frustration--Neelix asks to be desysopped, the ArbCom case will be closed per motion, there's a one-year community ban on creating redirects, and that's it. When does some sort of justice turn into a pound of flesh? I was never in favor of blocking, but this sure is an easy way out. On the other hand, if he comes back and he creates one more sexist category or redirect someone will block him immediately, no doubt, and any COI edits will likewise receive all the scrutiny they deserve, and will probably be deemed blockable by whoever's on duty. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

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

---

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with User:Legacypac's editing at User talk:Neelix. Is it really appropriate for someone to archive another user's page, and add a manual archive script? Neelix is a seasoned editor here but if I were to do that to a new editor's page, they may never know what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac's edits appear entirely reasonable and appropriate considering the community involvement and interest in transparency and fixing the problem. I can't for the life of me understand what your comfort level has to do with this. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How does auto-archiving discussions increase transparency? Those notices possibly aren't seen and discussions that we have now will likely be auto-archived before/if Neelix returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Confusing and obfuscating again, I see. I was specifically referring to the link to deletions added by Legacypac in the name of transparency. As for auto-archiving discussions, that's standard procedure. Anything else you want to complain about? Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to set up auto-archiving, I'm trying to set up one click archiving to reduce the cut and paste effort. The link at the top is SUPER helpful. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to save a lot of time for the many people who are cleaning up his mess (especially now that he is on a wikibreak and taking zero responsibility). I got really tired of scrolling down his talk page to manually cut and paste templates over to the ever growing delete page. Anyway the script is not working perfectly. Maybe someone with more experience can look at it? It needs to go to the deletions page but it goes to a new number 1 page. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Community involvement doesn't require the use of Neelix's talk page. The only reason would be if there's actual discussions with Neelix going on there and there aren't so why is there a need to use it for discussion? If it's a templating RFD notices issue, then that's something else but if Neelix comes back in six months or so, why should his entire talk page be archived based on your choices as to auto-archiving his talk page? The purposes of notices are that the person sees it, adding notices and then setting up a system of archiving them without their involvement seems like a bad precedent to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The talk page belongs to the community, not to Neelix, and in the name of transparency the link helps. I believe there is ample precedent for this. The fact that Neelix is still allowed to edit is the real problem, and you are doing a good job deflecting from it. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think Neelix should be editing. It should be treated as a prolific copyright violator scenario: if you aren't going to help solve these problems, you shouldn't be allowed to continue. The topic ban for redirects solved nothing but just left the work for others. As discussed before, Neelix will likely just return to Commons for a while or move on to something else but the problems remain. If Neelix truly understood that the redirects were a problem, then Neelix can help fix them. If this is just avoidance, well it would look like it does right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Go read the notice on his talk page about placing notices on the delete page please. My efforts are only to make this process easier. He already has a 23 page archive and assorted subpages to his talk page. No one is hiding anything from him here. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about User talk:Neelix/deletions which you created? You created a deletions page and then put up a notice on the talk page as justification for the deletion notices page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? What am I missing? It keeps all those unsightly notices (which, I suppose, are required to be sent by policy) out of the main talk page, which Neelix is unlikely to clean up now that he's on break. LjL (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What is Wrong is that Ricky has not even looked at what is happening since SarahSV (not me, an admin) created User talk:Neelix/deletions and posted for everyone to use it. When User talk:Neelix/deletions quickly swelled past 70+ templates and was getting hard to add stuff too (scroll way down and paste in), I set up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neelix/deletions/Archive_1 which has 50 templates on it already. We need a system to track this stuff, including what has been dealt with and what is still being discussed or waiting for action. Note that one template often represents dozens and in one case 399 different redirects. The people involved all seem happy with the little system we have cobbled together. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, maybe you could just skip on sending the warning templates, per WP:BURO. Neelix isn't likely to see them (he's on a break), and even if he saw them, he has basically agreed to let the community delete whatever redirects they want to delete, and he doesn't practically have much choice on the matter either. If all that following the procedure will cause here is that people complain, without any actual advantage, maybe it's not worth it. LjL (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ricky81682, the problem is that Twinkle was notifying Neelix on his talk page of every deletion discussion, and it seemed to me that this was unkind and overwhelming. So I moved the templates to User talk:Neelix/deletions, and posted a note on his talk page asking people to post deletion templates there in future. The subpage has become long enough that Legacypac wanted to set up auto-archiving, which seems reasonable. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll drop it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Copyvio on Radosław Sikorski

IP 203.184.61.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and user Mahitahi359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) paste on page Radosław Sikorski the copyrighted text [56] [57] [58]. Source, from which it was copied: http://www.lcnewsgroup.com/radoslaw-sikorski-on-tape-plot-to-impose-russian-coal-ban-for-oligarchs-profit-confiscate-and-resell-gazprom-gas/

Please intervene. --WTM (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You should replace the entire page with a notice but it's a BLP so there's more concerns than that at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Radosław Sikorski. Let's see if there's anything more that can be said. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question - or what I'm assuming is their newly created account - has also violated 3RR on the article [59], [60], [61], [62]. So you got the classic trifecta of WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO and WP:3RR. Volunteer Marek  03:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits have been reldelted now. I don't think a block is necessary unless the editor continues ignoring the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeated edits/reverts by User talk:M.starnberg

A user by the name of M.starnberg has been making numerous useless edits to a large number of pages, such as Winston Churchill, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk and many more. Although other users have pointed out to him that he is edit warring (see his talk page; at least five or six different users have posted messages), he has not stopped and continues to make edits that serve no apparent point (continously downscaling postnominals in infoboxes, changing Peers' infoboxes to Officeholder version while those peers have never held any interesting offices, etc.). I have briefly discussed this with Miesianiacal and I was advised to bring the issue up here; I've placed a message on M.starnberg's talk page as well to notify him of this. JorisEnter (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this editor 2..who is edit warning and having problem engaging people. M.starnberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Positive contributions or not if they are unwilling to follow our basic behavioural exceptions we have a problem. Hes/She has posted to a few peoples talk page but not all seem willing to talk at this point. Can we get someone who has experience with newbies (admin or not) to have a look and say a few words. The editor is edit warring with what I believe is good faith edits....but has not received the warmest welcome either so...?? -- Moxy (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the only response M.starnberg has given so far is "I was not being disruptive" or something along those lines, so I suppose they are unwilling to give any proper response. Most newbies would freak out if they saw such an amount of edit warring notices on their talk page, and M.starnberg hasn't exactly stopped making disruptive edits, so... JorisEnter (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've left a comment and a warning on their talk page. Hopefully they'll take note and start discussing rather than reverting. Blackmane (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I notice this editor has been listening, in a way: for example, s/he has started piping links to royal houses in infoboxes after being blocked from repeatedly doing the opposite at Elizabeth II. S/he simply doesn't communicate. So, it seems the main problem here is one of collegiality. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to add that the user not only continues to edit war, but the edits are so inconsistent. At one point s/he adds post-nominal templates, and then, at another, removes them. On still other occasions, he changes the correct post-nom template to an older, inferior version. And, of course, continues to very rarely respond to any remark or inverse action; the only recent noise out of him her being a justification of a revert because s/he knows better. 48 hours off seems sufficient to me, for a start. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I join the discussion to say that this editor changed the collage on the Rome (and, I am seeing now, also of Milan) article without seeking consensus, ignoring my advice to open a thread on the discussion page and discussing his change, and keeping reverting without answering. Moreover, she/he deleted his/her whole talk page, with my message and the other warnings, without responding to anyone. Anyway, it is not true, as @Miesianiacal: writes, that he is not communicating with other users, as it is apparent from his/her numerous (mostly aggressive) edit summaries and from this edit. As a whole, I think that his/her behavior is totally unacceptable and, as written above by @JorisEnter:, I am also suspecting that he/she is not exactly a newbie. Some kind of action should then be taken, in order to stop him/her. Alex2006 (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Tendency towards edit spats & refusal to communicate, is quite apparent. Recommend a 1-week block, if anything to get editor's attention. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, maybe so he will finally learn about the existence of talk pages... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

M.starnberg has blanked their page for a second time, but appears to have discovered that postnominals in infoboxes should be 100%. Has been reverting many of their own edits to pages such as Arthur Balfour and Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. JorisEnter (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In somewhat defence of M.starnberg, concerning how to show 'royal houses' in bios. There's been some inconsistencies - see British & Italian monarchs bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm very curious about Alistain Wettin, at the moment. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly is suspicious. M. Starnberg's last edit was 14/11/15 and Alistair Wettin appears on the same day. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• AGF or not, I think its perfectly fair to assume that preemting a looming indef block, Starnberg has created Wettin. There's probably going to be no solution other than blocking them both. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruption, edit warring, and harassment by 2602:306:c5b4:e3d0...

Shooting of Samuel DuBose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has no persistent identity as his IP address changes at least daily. His most recent addresses have been:

• 2602:306:c5b4:e3d0:4811:21a:b873:1a02 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:c5b4:e3d0:35d2:4bdb:a6:d594 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:c5b4:e3d0:fd6a:87ef:a89e:dd53 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:c5b4:e3d0:f05d:49ad:7b3c:978c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:c5b4:e3d0:8df:6c2b:fd2b:30b4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:c5b4:e3d0:88dc:135c:68f0:885d (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Instead of understanding and observing WP:CONSENSUS, he prefers to make up his own rules, such as:

• If he feels an existing consensus violates WP:V, there is no need to seek a new consensus, he can just declare it invalid on the article talk page and edit against it.[63]
• If one of the editors involved in an existing consensus is less active in the article now, there is no need to seek a new consensus, he can just declare it invalid on the article talk page and edit against it.[64]
  

He makes disputed edits without consensus, using phrases such as "per talk" in his edit summaries. For him, "per talk" means "I explained my reasoning on the talk page, and there is no need to wait for consensus because my reasoning is so obviously correct." Classic disruptive behavior.
When I templated him for edit warring,[65] his reply was "Discuss it on the talk page".[66] No, I don't think article talk is for edit warring warnings, and edit warring is not something for discussion. This is typical of this user's misunderstanding of how things work here, and of his propensity for making up or distorting rules.
In return, he responded by templating me for edit warring,[67], despite the fact that I let his reverts stand precisely to avoid edit warring. He added the comment, "Please use the talk page to discuss your edits rather than simply claiming the existence of a consensus which does not currently exist.", despite the fact that I have pointed him to this existing consensus in the archives of article talk. I have provided this link once in an edit summary[68] and again in article talk.[69] He appears to believe that a consensus has to be rehashed and renewed periodically to remain in effect, but I'm not aware of any expiration clause in WP:CONSENSUS. He has also stated that a consensus was void because he was not present to participate in it, a gross misinterpretation/distortion of policy.
He seems to have a special interest in me in particular, and he researched my contribs going back a number of months, to find things that he could throw up in my face, use as weapons against me in disputes, etc. (I was User:Mandruss until I recently began editing logged out.) He posted two such comments on my talk page today alone.[70][71] I have no doubt that his sole intent was to irritate me. This behavior is something I have never done with another editor and I find it un-Wikipedian, very unseemly, and a little disturbing.
He has repeatedly posted comments on my talk page after I told him that his comments are not welcome there. I believe that is forbidden.
This is not about content dispute, although the user will no doubt try to divert it into a content discussion. It's about disruptive behavior, aggressive incompetence, and refusal or inability to collaborate in good faith. This has been going on too long and frankly I've had it with this person. I am at the limit of my patience but I do not wish to be driven away from this article by such a user.

Be warned, they may also claim that this thread is merely an attempt at revenge for a recent incident in which I received a 24-hour block for exceeding 3RR by one when attempting to deal with this person's disruption. Simply not so.

Multiple of the user's no-consensus disputed edits currently stand, and I am unable to revert them without violating 3RR. Even if I wait, my reverts could be construed as sub-3RR edit warring. In addition to some sanction against this editor, I would appreciate some assistance in enforcing process policy in that article. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any links showing edit warring, for which this is the wrong noticeboard anyway. The editor forgets to include the history; such as how he was blocked for edit warring,[72] and made personal attacks on me, apparently referring to me as an "aggressively incompetent, chronically disruptive editor".[73] As for the charge of being disruptive - I have improved the article more than any other editor in recent months. It is this editor who refuses to engage in productive discussion, insisting that a months-old agreement between two out of three editors forever binds future editors but not seeking any fresh consensus. He even asserts that the consensus can override WP policies, like WP:V, at Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose#‎No citations needed?. This complaint is without merit. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't alter your text after it there has been a reply.[74] 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is this editor who refuses to engage in productive discussion, insisting that a months-old agreement between two out of three editors forever binds future editors but not seeking any fresh consensus. This is precisely the kind of distortion I'm referring to. I have done nothing but seek a fresh consensus, as typified in this comment. I could flood you with diffs, but the evidence is strewn throughout that talk page and not hard to find. I invite anyone to have a look and decide for yourself who is acting in good faith here, and who is being sneaky and dishonest. Sorry but my AGF took a hike some time ago with this person. That's what brings me here.
The editor forgets to include the history; such as how he was blocked for edit warring - Willful blindness?? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're so keen on finding a fresh consensus, please offer any diff of you proposing a revision or other proposal to address the serious concerns I raised about your preferred text. All I see is you saying over and over that it has a consensus, with no alternatives allowed. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

For example - you refused to allow a citation request tag on some disputed text: [75][76][77][78], even deleting sourced text and replacing it with the unsourced text. Who finally added the citations? I did.[79] How disruptive of me! 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor accuses me of "making up" CONSENSUS rules, but I don't think he understands the policy himself. He seems to confuse finding consensus with holding a vote in which the majority rules regardless of the policy or content issues discussed.[80][81] 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sock

I've rangeblocked for one year. The IP is a sock which I can certainly prove. He uses HotCat (the only problem is HotCat isn't available to IPs which seems to imply someone using an account that is copypasting between browsers and avoiding scrutiny.) That is the one piece of proof that I want to put out there for now. There is no doubt that they are avoiding scrutiny. I have more but I don't want to skew the results where I'm going to ask other sock hunters to look into this from here at ANI as a start...it may end up at SPI a little later. I believe that this is a certain regular editor with a reasonably good standing so this is no small matter. Here is the search range. There is one other admin that knows who I think this is...but again, I appreciate independent investigations and I would like to see if others reach the same conclusion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't know for sure, and I don't know if it's significant, but the aggressiveness, disruptiveness, and preoccupation with and harassment of me are oddly similar to 8.39.228.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who used to edit the same article. See this archived ANI thread from August. I don't claim it has anything to do with socking (and I'm probably in the wrong subsection with this), but if it's in fact the same editor this kind of behavior has occurred for longer than I first thought. Perhaps admins have a way to answer that question. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Harassment and non- cooperation along with disruptive edits by User:Jalodiya enforcing Ownership on the article Meena

Please note that the contents of the article Meena are outcome of the long discussions and active involvement of the experienced aditors (Please refer the Talk:Meena.

The said user on 10 Nov, 2015 made around 25 disruptive edits in which he altered the predecided contents to the caste promotional tone and removed the sourced sections of the article as suitable to his own promotional tone [See_Here. Also he repeated doing the same for his WP:OR further on 11 and 12 Nov 2015 (Here).

He was invited to discussion where he remained totally non co operative on his stand of own WP:OR. He was cautioned and warned on his talk page by me and other editors, which he completely ignored and in response he served the final warning notice to me here.

Not only this, He did a series of disruptions even on Talk page of the article where he was called for discussion for giving justification for his disruptive edits, he in response simply changed the heading to my name (Most_interesting_to_see). I have never seen such a dominating behaviour where a user think that he can do anything on wikipedia and there is no one to check him. He does not bother for the policies at all.

Let me also submit that I have not made any major active edit on the page and I just requested him not to alter the contents which were decided by the long discussions. Even if he desires to change something then he must first obtain the consensus by discussion and for that he made many personal accusations on me on the article Talk page.

His main stress is on stating that Meena caste (Which in fact is a scheduled tribe of Rajasthan in India) is a Kshatriya caste and they are descendants of Matsya Kingdom, which in fact is a myth to which most of the scholars do not agree. All these statements are pre-existing in the article but he wants these facts to be written in affirmative tone as decided by him and there shall be nothing which is against the glorification of the caste. I wonder and worry that if he is not checked to do what he is doing presently, the article will lose the NPOV criteria. Also the wikipedia edit policies have no effect on him as he bothered least for all the advice. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is apparently a content dispute and doesn't belong here any more than it did here pursuant to the closing administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What about this now, he again served me warning where as I have not made any edit on the article Meena on 14 November. Is it not a harassment to me. Is he free from following procedures and policies of wikipedia. Ok, fine then. What else can I do except reporting.--MahenSingha (Talk) 09:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Caidin-Johnson

Over the past couple years, User:Caidin-Johnson and his socks have been nothing more but a nuisance, adding nonsensical content to various articles relating to Crayola, Happy Tree Friends, etc. as well as creating incomprehensible articles related to the 'history of gluten' and the 'oh no bunny' and 'oh no elephant' shows and even the list of happy tree friends 'irregulars' episodes season 1, none of which exist. I wonder what he wants. Does he want attention or perhaps help somehow? Does he purely want to disrupt the encyclopedia? Or does he want to promote what he does? I don't know if a community ban is necessary, or if we can somehow point him in the right direction, reminding him that Wikipedia is not for things he and/or his mates made up one day at home/school/college/work, etc. --189.106.227.35 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what are you looking for? Someone to see "yes that's a waste of time"? Because that's clear. A ban strikes me as unnecessary. Is there an SPI? Have you been reporting socks there? Are there any socks active now that need looking into? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The user is "de facto banned", so there's no need to formalize it. I get the strong sense that CJ may not be in full control of his own behavior and he may lack appropriate parental supervision. The latter fact irritates me, but the former fact is something we should perhaps be sensitive to, even if it is extraordinarily disruptive and causes us extra work. Sometimes it would be nice if Wikimedia could just phone the parents and be like, "Yo, you need to monitor this" but that's not what we do at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Stargrl

Re Stargrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for simplicity purposes, I’ll assume by the username that the editor is female): not vandalism in the strictest sense, but a continuing history of damaging edits that require repair by others. Nearly all of her edits of 12–13 November violate RS and/or NPOV (Paige Larson: 1 2 3; Theresa Donovan: 1; Hailee Steinfeld: 1). Even her sourced edits have skewed toward celebrities’ personal relationships with a reliance on the tabloid (Billy Flynn (actor): 1; Gigi Hadid: 1; Emma Watson: 1; literally dozens more), and show no willingness to learn how to format citations. She has been advised, cajoled and warned repeatedly for these behaviors, and was blocked once; there is no indication she has ever read her talk page or, at least, that she intends to learn therefrom. The problem with a short block: she may make handfuls of edits, then disappear for weeks or even months at a time. I’m requesting an indefinite block (including account creation) to force her to address her problem editing, engage with other editors, and treat the encyclopedia for what it is. (Moved from AIV.) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• *tap*tap* is this thing on? 😜 —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cristina Vee

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

---

I would be grateful if an admin could take a look at this article, particularly regarding the references and the recent revision history on Cristina Vee.

I'm firstly concerned that this article contains a lot of sources such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube which are not encouraged as good reliable encyclopedic sources. When I placed a template at the top of the article to request additional citations for a BLP article, my edit was swiftly reverted in a short space of time and the template at the top of the article was removed.

I also noticed a recent edit summary on 14 November 2015 (UK time) in which an editor said: "Add Facebook characters I'VE voiced." I'm therefore concerned that somebody could be too closely connected to this article, leading to a conflict of interest.

Even Cristina Vee's date of birth on the article is only sourced by Tweets. This certainly doesn't encourage faith in the encyclopedic nature of the article when a very large number of references, including her date of birth, are only sourced by Tweets and not by more reliable independent sources.

I thought about restoring the template at the top of the article requesting additional improved citations for a BLP article, but I fear that it will once again be swiftly removed. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried that, and it was swiftly removed with the comment [82] "Why, you seem like one of hundreds of users that is against the idea of using Facebook, twitter and Youtube as actual reliable sources!!" so maybe an Admin wants to look into this. I've notified the involved editor of this discussion on her talk, and suggest that this [83] part of her talk page provides background. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to block me, then do it, the reason I acted this way is that I feel very shocked and disapointed that Tweets from Twitter, and Facebook posts are not reliable to Wikipedia standards anymore, It's just frustrating seeing this!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think a little education rather then a block is in order. Tweets and Facebook have never been seen as WP:RS (which you should read). The reason is that anyone can say anything about anything on Twitter/Facebook with no editorial oversight. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just block me, I just can't believe that I am going to have to remove all the tweets and Facebook posts saying they are NOT reliable sources for nothing, I feel utterly dissapointed If that's how you make the rules here then I quit. :(--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The best way to have Wikipedia roughly approximate truth is to use RS - see WP:UGC. Become a better editor not a former editor please. Legacypac (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• How are there any reliable sources in there? What is that article other than a lengthy resumes with links for the entries? Drmies (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's how you are going to do this with this "NEW RULE" you decide as of Yesterday, well guess what I want to go on a STRIKE!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeDisneylover95 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is entirely volunteer edited - it's your choice whether you want to edit. Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 20:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, WP:HOUNDing, and refusal to WP:AGF from User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker

Recently, myself and another user, Pincrete (talk · contribs), have been engaged in a protracted content dispute with Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk · contribs) on Political correctness. The dispute itself is actually mostly fairly minor (many aspects are just one-word differences or disagreements over emphasizing this figure vs. that figure); it's lead to revert-wars and has gotten him blocked for a WP:3RR violation once before, but on the whole I don't think that the content dispute is the core issue. The problem is that Mr. Magoo has, throughout, refused to WP:AGF or to interact with us in a WP:CIVIL manner. Today, he has begun WP:HOUNDing me, going over all my edits across multiple articles and reverting any that fall into the general views of me he expressed in the conflict.

He refuses to WP:AGF explicitly here here and here; his comments on the talk page have frequently made it clear that he sees the conflict as a WP:BATTLEGROUND confrontation against 'bullies' and 'leftists' who he believes attacking the article (and who he must therefore confront and stop.) See eg. here, his edit summary here, his accusitions of an agenda here and here, and so on. Early on in the dispute, he said this; while he later reverted it, I feel that it still accurately summarized his views.

He has also repeatedly implied some sort of link between me and Pincrete, either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry; see eg [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. He's been asked by multiple people to stop and to WP:AGF several times, or to take it to WP:SPI (or to the appropriate venue if he alleges some other sort of user misconduct); he's refused to do either, claiming that we must be using a VPN and therefore a SPI would be useless. Throughout this, he's asked me if I'm utterly biased and corrupt, leaped to accusing me of lying repeatedly whenever there's a disagreement about the sources, repeatedly accused me of bias in a hostile tone, and so on.

I could deal with these WP:TONE issues and his WP:BATTLEGROUND stance towards me when it was confined to one article, but today he seems to have gone down my history looking for edits he could revert, reverting often fairly old edits by me here, here, here, here, here, and here in rapid succession with no discussion on talk (and in some cases, these were things that had been extensively discussed on talk at the time); his primary reason for these reverts, in all cases, seems to have been that they were edits made by me and therefore ones he viewed as suspect. While I've been in a dispute with him for a while (and he's taken issue with some of my comments), I believe that I've generally been comparatively polite, neutral, and reasonable when articulating my position; I don't feel I should have to face this sort of sweeping, constant assumption of bad faith from him across multiple articles. Therefore, I'd like to ask an administrator to step in and make him stop.

(Aside note: I'm unsure if these articles fall under the discretionary sanctions for American politics. I tend to feel they do, since most of the most prominent history and discussion focusing on America, so I notified Mr. Magoo about those sanctions early on; but they cross international boundaries to an extent.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just look at these edits by him and judge whether it's "hounding" to revert them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675374256&oldid=675373291

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675820694&oldid=675820293

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675825446&oldid=675825192

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675820293&oldid=675653614

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675821025&oldid=675820694

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675822036&oldid=675821325

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675372296&oldid=674968433

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675373155&oldid=675372296

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675822036&oldid=675821325

Note the close-by dates. I only came to edit the article a little over a month later so I never got to see these edits before now. He removes well-sourced bits that shine bad light on some liberal issue, nearly always stating the reason to be WP:UNDUE. He truly has an easily provable political agenda.

Also note that Aquillion has himself (who else would I war with but him) warred with me and been warned by an admin for it. He neatly leaves that out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAquillion&type=revision&diff=688347435&oldid=687968961

The 24-hour block I received was after I reverted his two reverts. He was just as guilty as me but only I were blocked.

Also note that I once took the matter exactly here before about his behavior unlike what he claims and nothing was done. Note that I have never accused anyone of being "leftist." He made that up.

Also note that he has truly lied about my actions and it's easily provable, like I wrote about his massive section concentrating on me on the talk page:

He does it more covertly than I did but nevertheless the section focuses on me and he states things I never did, which is clearly affront. He declares I inserted a paragraph which was a duplicate of the 1980s: untrue for it was added before 1980s existed. He declares that I sparked the edit war even though it was his non-stable changing of the timeline to non-chronological that did. He accuses of "blanket reverting" when he pretty much "blanket edits" the entire article. I mean he removed two sections from the history. He himself truly offers no explanation for why the history section needs to be changed to be like that. He constantly repeats that I offer no explanations but I have repeatedly again and again and again explained why Kimball can't be misquoted when the person whose view he specifically endorses is Frederick Crews. And good faith needs to happen on both sides.

Here's an example of his edit wars — this time with another person — which usually end with him at 2 reverts per 24 hours, purposely avoiding 3RR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_justice&diff=682347428&oldid=682213827

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_justice&diff=682423153&oldid=682355177

Here is the war I was blocked for but he wasn't, these are all 2000 character reverts of his:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=684390425&oldid=684268104

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=684393568&oldid=684393276

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=684614287&oldid=684558287

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=684879822&oldid=684851688

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=685330688&oldid=685329468

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=685354045&oldid=685348969

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=685744764&oldid=685741754

Here he removes 8 of my sources, keeping all of his:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&type=revision&diff=688064562&oldid=688035284

A minute later he posts this — pretty much just a snipe — on talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_correctness&diff=688064659&oldid=688064521

You can't assume good faith from someone who behaves like that. He had notified in no way. Long pause from editing.

Fyddlestix wasn't mentioned here before now and he's rarely if ever mentioned, but Aquillion went to notify him of this ANI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFyddlestix&type=revision&diff=690577317&oldid=690479610

Plainly Aquillion's motive isn't to "shine light" on anything but to get me blocked from editing political correctness. This is why he's gathering troops. If he gets his wish through you can be sure he'll start removing 5000+ characters of worth because there will be no one left to oppose him. There have been over ten who have disagreed with him but they give up quickly after a barrage of WP points.

I'll add more of his accusations and bad behavior here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarifications: That reply was to Pincrete's post at the top of the section, not to you, since I was discussing his proposed edit (which you'd placed in the article prematurely, before there was any real discussion on it) and wanted to make sure my more limited changes at least addressed his concerns. I broadly stand by my other edits, though I'm sure there are details that could be worded better or aspects where I could have been more careful in terms of communication. The WP:HOUNDing issue, though, refers to the way, earlier today, you suddenly went across multiple articles you'd never visited before and reverted me with no discussion, all at once and within a few minutes of each other; my understanding is that you went over my history looking for things to revert based on your personal view that I'm editing in bad faith and need to be stopped. You are correct that you said that I had a 'left-wing agenda' here rather than literally saying that I am a 'leftist', but the end result is the same; based on those comments, I believe you're interpreting that page in particular and (now that you've started following my edit history) Wikipedia as a whole as WP:BATTLEGROUND in which to confront me. Do you deny this? --Aquillion (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You later added to that message that there are no sources of non-pejorative usage. Obviously because you just removed 8 of them. You couldn't have accidentally, without noticing, removed 8 sources of non-pejorative and then obliviously written that there are no non-pejorative sources. You very much snipe covertly on purpose. And I went across a couple almost identical articles to political correctness you had removed sourced bits from. Then you came to revert back. I now went to look at your history and you have edited many more articles in a similar fashion. If you claim I did this to hit back, why didn't I edit those then? Maybe because I edit articles similar to political correctness? And yes, that left-wing agenda came up just hours ago as I witnessed your obviously biased editing history. It's now undeniable that you misedit and remove valid points based on your political view only. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I won't discuss content disputes except to say that, as you know, I disagree with your reading of the sources, including the ones that you feel support your position; and that I was reverting the lead to a more mild compromise from the last stable version before you WP:BOLDly replaced it. Regarding the WP:HOUNDing issue, though, you had never edited any of those articles before; your only edit on any of them was to revert often fairly old edits by me, which you did immediately after declaring on the talk page for political correctness that you were going over my edit history. I feel that all of my edits have been neutral, reasonable, supported by the preponderance of reliable sources, and backed by the appropriate principle of WP:DUE weight; and, in general, when these edits have been discussed, there has been no support for your contention that my edits are so obviously biased that they support your blanket accusations of bad faith against me. Again, WP:AGF is policy! Yes, we have to be careful about our biases; everyone has their own perspectives which affect how they read and interpret sources. But we have to be willing to assume that people whose opinions differ from ours (even strongly so) are editing based on their good-faith understanding of the subject, the sources, and the policies governing how we interact with them, or it's impossible for us to edit constructively. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead was Pincrete's suggestion. I apologize for mentioning it again, but at the time I thought we could agree and jumped at the opportunity. You also boldly removed the 8 sources while you were at that bold revert. And of the "hounding," I came upon Social Justice and saw that you were going through all similar articles. I did look at what similar articles you had edited. This isn't reverting your history, this is fighting over the same matter on different but similar articles. And again, good faith goes both ways. From the start you've shown bad faith, though I admit so have I. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• With just a quick review it is really hard to understand who is right on the content issue. Fortunately, that's not my job here. @Mr. Magoo and McBarker:, you cannot follow this editor around Wikipedia reverting all that they do. It is a form of harassment and can lead to blocks. Do you agree, or do we need to discuss this further? If you have content disagreements here are two strategies that will help: (1) eventualism, let them get their way and eventually some other editor(s) will notice and fix any problems, (2) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Do we see eye to eye? Jehochman ^Talk 10:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not following him. The articles are related to political correctness, which is what we're fighting over. None were unrelated to political correctness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please show me the diffs where you have edited the articles previously, before reverting Aquillion. If you've never edited those articles before and you are just going down Aquillion's contribution history and reverting anything you don't like related to political correctness, that is a violation of WP:HOUND. Aquillion is not a vandal. There has been no finding that Aquillion's editing has been inappropriate and needs to be cleaned up. If you feel that is the case, use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to generate a finding, and then you will have more leeway to do cleanup in that manner. Otherwise and until then, you need to Assume Good Faith, that Aquillion's edits are constructive and should not be reverted en mass. Do you agree, or do you want to do this the hard way? Jehochman ^Talk 10:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not for fighting, as you just admitted that you were fighting. If you get into a protracted disagreement with another editor you can either go some place else in Wikipedia and avoid them, or use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Don't continue to fight. That's also good grounds for a block. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker so I don't know all of the terminologies related to Political Correctness. I had not edited the articles before because I only discovered them now, through mostly Social Justice — the other very similar article. I will continue editing them from now on, which isn't hounding but again disagreeing over the same matter over similar articles. I have not touched any his edited articles unrelated to political correctness. I have shown good faith to other editors of political correctness who have disagreed with me. I had falsely accused Pincrete of behaving like Aquillion, but I seriously apologized after I noticed that even though he had done 65 edits and was generally against me and with Aquillion, his edits were mostly small and CE. And yes, we both edit warred and got warned for it (and blocked). We stopped. Also notice I have started two RfCs on the talk page. The other was restarted once but was closed again after sort of concensus was found. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And just like in the ANI before, I feel like we're wasting time here. We have heatedly argued over the article but as of late it's been quiet. I didn't have any reason to "hit back." The fresh arguments in the RFC are going my way, suggesting a change to often from primarily. It used to be ordinarily. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just noting two things. First, the WP:HOUND diffs Aquillon linked to at the top of this section are not only to articles Mr. Magoo and McBarker does not typically edit, but they were also performed in immediate succession. I.e. Magoo was looking for Aquillon contribs to revert. Second, it's striking that Magoo's first edit to Talk:Political correctness was on 1 October 2015 and since that point he has completely and utterly dominated the page, making almost a THOUSAND edits in a month and a half. Such intensity, with the evidence of POV-pushing and battleground behavior Aquillon points to above, and now obvious hounding, is seriously troubling for what is effectively a WP:SPA.

Seriously straining to assume good faith, but since he is new and does not look to have been warned about some of the policies he's been brought to ANI for (despite them being those which should be pretty obviously counter to the spirit of the project), it may be appropriate for this thread to be closed with a warning if Magoo acknowledges problematic behavior (without pointing back at Aquillon). Regardless, I'd strongly urge you, Magoo, to take a break from the political correctness article for a while. I see a lot of people come to Wikipedia passionate about a subject who become so invested that they inevitably burn out, frustrated (if their intensity doesn't get them blocked first). Sometimes you just need to step away for a while. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Those edits were mostly tiny edits where I fixed a typo or added missing verbs. How is succession proof of anything? It's evident from the talk page I click submit fast and they were simple undos. I did go through the pages quickly, in an angered state at witnessing the removals. To me they looked to be plain vandalism, removing cited bits. Maybe I should have brought them up here instead. And evidently it's not allowed to disagree with an editor on multiple articles. The bad faith is bad behavior, yes, but the warring has stopped long since like I mentioned. I only found out these edits today. But I apologize for my bad faith, I'll try be more friendly in the future and accuse less. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Old issue via SPA grudge, entirely irrelevant to present thread — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, this was brought up elsewhere. I'm familiar with Aquillion. He's one of the faction that keep deleting and what they call salting JonTron's pages. They're mostly Tumblr users spurred by this stuff http://theloudestsongs.tumblr.com/post/108809683254/why-jontron-can-go-fuck-himself. I mean look at all these people less famous than Jon Jafari having their own pages https://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTubers. Jon Jafari is articled by news http://www.tubefilter.com/2014/05/15/jontron-youtube-millionaires/. The faction is a clique of SJW warriors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice4jafari (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 November 2015 I assume you're referring to my comment here, which is, as far as I can recall, the only place I've weighed in on the subject; that was practically a WP:SNOW closure based on the facts that it had been deleted several times before and that the new version didn't answer the problems that got it deleted. All that would really be necessary to make an article and have it stick, though, would be to clearly pass WP:WEB, which only really requires non-trivial coverage by two or more high-quality sources (news articles, magazine articles, and so on, say; something we can write an article around without relying heavily on original research.) Before I weighed in there, I actually did make a bit of an effort to search online for sources that could save it, but came up blank. --Aquillion (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - There's a legit (and pretty pedestrian) conduct dispute going on at Political Correctness, but that's not the issue here; Mr. Magoo and McBarker is editing disruptively. He started posted to that article's talk page on September 30th, and has made 981 edits to the talk page in that time. This is excessive by almost any standard, and a quick perusal of the talk page itself should make it abundantly clear that Magoo has been rather badly bludgeoning the discussion. He has completely exhausted the patience of pretty much everyone who edits/watches the page. He has edit warred, repeatedly refused to assume good faith, and refused to listen - and his conduct in this dispute has made the article measurably worse - the article lede, for example, is a mess of WP:OVERCITE now, because Magoo has taken an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to sourcing his arguments, while writing off high-quality sources that don't support his view (often simply because the author happens to be a liberal or "left-wing" in Msgoo's opinion). I'm involved, but in my opinion either a topic ban or a block for Magoo is needed here. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, those were mostly minor few letters copy-edits. Secondly, I have only edit warred in the past with Aquillion. Thirdly, I don't now assume bad faith from others since like I pointed out the other edits were mostly copy-editing. Fourthly, most of the citations pointed out with the overcitation tag aren't mine. Fifthly, that political bias pointing was a tiny portion of the argument I had against the source. More notable was that the primary source is cited by 3 people and was published in a journal about poetry for children, and my source cited by 504 academics and the other cited by 93 are ignored. Of the talking I'd like to add: I have not edited the actual page much. Is it a crime to talk too much? Is this a new policy? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

'I have only edit warred in the past with Aquillion' is simply untrue, you have repeatedly re-inserted material when you knew that I, or Fyddlestix objected to it strongly, for clearly stated policy reasons. This is not the place to argue content matters, nor whose sources are better. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The only time I've reverted you twice was yesterday when you kept removing a midpart of a sentence, leaving it broken and unreadable: "Critics, including Camille Paglia and James Atlas, as the likely beginning..." That was really bizarre and I don't think anyone would blame me for reverting it twice. The edit's apparent goal was for some reason to remove two sources, leaving the text but sourceless. I added a clarification to appease you in the second time. And I don't think I've had any issues with Fyddle on this article? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I endorse everything said by Aquillion and Fyddlestix, Mr. Magoo and McBarker has had innumerable requests/warnings about AGF, edit warring and his continuous bludgeoning, changing the subject mid-sentence and misrepresentation/cherry-picking of sources and the text of other editors. One recent AGF request is here, his reply here, my reply, his reply. The subject of this exchange is one of several sections created by Mr Magoo, with no other purpose than to make accusations against myself and Aquillion, which he also 'wallpapers frequently. Contrary to his claim above to have apologised to me, I am not aware of Mr Magoo having apologised to anyone, nor, more importantly, to modify his behaviour. I have never encountered a more capriciously tendentious editor. Even at this ANI, he muddies the water with content issues (which as Fyddlestix says are trivial and solvable), he misrepresents his edit-warring (knowingly, repeatedly, re-inserting text against concensus). While claiming here - for the first time - that he is not a native speaker, he reverts back in, atrociously muddled and blatantly PoV phrasing, argues pedantically about spurious points of semantics and frankly trolls at every opportunity.

The examples which Aquillion gives of 'hounding', are also typical of Mr Magoo's battleground and WP:POINTY editing, in his 'edit reasons' he names Aquillion and myself, rather than informing anyone why the material should be re-inserted (the fact that we months ago removed the material is sufficient reason for re-insertion?). The notion that although a source is a necessary, it is not a sufficient reason for inclusion is lost on him. Explanations about OR, Synth and RS, equally go in one ear and out the other. Sorry, but if Mr Magoo lacks the command of English (for example to know - or care - about the difference between 'liberal' and 'far-left' as political labels), if he lacks the ability to AGF and the patience to work toward agreement, then he is a huge time-soak on a linguistically and politically sensitive subject and a topic ban or a block for Magoo is the only answer. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC) UpdateThe miniscule apology here to me is negated by justifying 'hounding' Aquillion for his supposed 'left-wing agenda'. Pincrete (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I went and checked and the first time you mention the word bludgeon was 6 days ago. 3 in total. So, no, not innumerable warnings but a few just recently. And I didn't post much at all to the talk page after that. You're just distorting the events. Similarly, there hasn't been an edit war for a long time now. The changing of subject mid-sentence I don't get. Could you point even a single case of this? Also, of the misrepresentation of sources: The primary source I criticize was published in a journal about poetry for children and is cited by 3 times. I have only repeatedly stated the facts. I have pushed my own 504 times and 93 times cited sources. They are promptly ignored. The section you point was made in response to the plain lies made in the section before, which focused plainly on me. I have pointed out earlier here the easily proven lies. And I have apologized, and I'm not muddling the water but proving my case. This is your removal I reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=676979874&oldid=676979233

where you remove a bit of the quote for absolutely no reason? This was plainly removed to make it more of a scare quote than a reasonable statement. I also now notice that you went and removed two sources from the article. You do not properly explain removals such as this. Aquillion sometimes throws out his classic WP:UNDUE. A WP point is not an explanation, especially when it seemingly doesn't apply and the edit is very WP:BOLD. In fact if someone has been bludgeoning the talk page it has been the editors bludgeoning everyone with their constant barrage of WP points. I am not the first one you have fought with. I'm one of ten: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. They all give up because arguing with you is extremely difficult. For example, you accept pretty much no sources except academic. Then someone flips it around and says the Baa Baa sheep bit is WP:UNDUE and vaguely sourced: 675460700. Obviously he is promptly ignored for 2 months until you finally bother retorting: 684276315. The message doesn't even seem to replying to him. It asks him to complete tasks which are completely unnecessary when it comes to his arguments. This is bludgeoning. And about your update: I'm not hounding and how was me mentioning Aquillion's bad deeds to you an offence to you? You had accused ME of agenda just before this reply. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Now Pincrete is edit warring at the article: 690578000 and 690680409. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

He is of course no stranger to edit warring: a case from last December. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Re my 'edit warring' today, if my edit reason is not self explanatory, a full account of why unnecessary refs were removed is here. The unnecessary nature of the refs was pointed out several weeks ago, text was left intact though that seems questionable.

There have been many requests + warnings to Mr Magoo about AGF, NPA and 'battleground', by me and others, I will assemble them if wished. Nobody has a right to a reply from me on talk, I have other things to do, I didn't notice BaaBaa at the time.

Regarding other matters, I will not reply beyond saying that the matter was amicably settled last December, look further back and you will find one other instance of me being warned for warring during the last 3+ years, that will save you dredging through my entire edit history in the hope of finding mud to sling. Pincrete (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote, at the time I were left waiting for you to actually open the links. They had plain hyperlinks and you were saying you can't access them. And I looked at battleground warnings and even those amount to only three and the first from the beginning of the month. I can also point you the times I've warned you about AGF. And this section really does seem to be pointless mud-slinging from all sides. Do you not agree that you don't really have an interest at teaching me anything but simply getting me removed from editing the article? Why do you keep suggesting a topic ban of all the things? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

More edit warring once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=690760560&oldid=690751090 --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'Why do you keep suggesting a topic ban of all the things?' . Simple answer to a simple question is because you show no interest whatsoever in listening/learning what is/is not OR, what is/is not synth, what are/are not RS nor what AGF actually means. It has become a full-time job for me walking behind you clearing up your mess, explaining basic policies for the Nth time, when you show no capacity to understand them nor inclination to work within them. The combination of 100s of edits per week with WP:IDHT, (or at least I am determined to interpret it in my own way), is a gigantic waste of everybody's time. I happen to be sympathetic to the idea that a neutral account of what critics were accusing PC-ers of would improve the article, that is not what you are doing. What you are doing is turning the article into Mr Magoo's private (and fairly inconsistent), muddled re-writing of history. WP:CIR applies, and you show no signs of having, or acquiring the competence or neutrality to edit a sensitive subject. You are wasting everyone's time, including your own, by seeing everything as a battleground. Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: More edit warring once again. How can it be edit warring to remove recently inserted material, which there is clear opposition to on talk? (Civitas) I don't believe I have ever knowingly edited against concensus on this article, though with dozens of daily edits, it's somtimes been impossible to keep track of what is in/out, what is sourced properly and generally what is going on. Regarding 'Dawkins', nobody has as yet expressed an opinion on talk, but there is long-term concensus that we do not quote examples of people USING the term - for fairly obvious reasons - the thousands of times that actions have been characterised as PC would bloat the article intolerably. The article is about the term, not the phenomenon. Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The opposition is you. I cleaned it up as requested but you still had issues with it for some reason. You requested that we not quote the person for some reason. I then asked you provide some sort of a paraphrasal. Shortly after you removed it entirely, blatantly against any sort of civil behavior. And he's not just "quoted", he's commenting on the protection issue. And the article is about the term indeed and the term describes the phenomenon. In this case the term is being used, to describe the phenomenon. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a lie once again. Provide one case of OR. Provide one case of synth. Provide one case of unreliable source. You on other hand are constantly edit warring and removing very sourced additions and sources themselves. You have no interest in concensus. You wrote that his view needs to be paraphrased. I asked for your paraphrasal. Instead you simply removed 3000 characters worth of a section with 7 sources. Earlier you made a rash edit which broke a sentence entirely into an uncomprehensible mess and when I reverted you reverted back. The sources you trumpet are incredibly unreliable. Again, published in a journal about poetry for children and cited by 3 is your primary source. I try to offer two cited by 504 and 93, but you claim they are unreliable. And again, the number of edits I make are tiny typo corrections on the talk page. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Calm down. I came here from a POV push on Moral panic after remembering this thread. (I haven't looked at other edits to articles, but imagine a pattern here.) You need to understand that your POV won't "win". That's not what this project is for. Just calm down, stop accusing others of faults, and go to the talk page and get consensus first. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You claimed this can't be used as a source that there is moral panic: PDF. You also said it was pointy to offer this as a source. And it seems like you came to hound me here. How again am I pushing a POV by providing that source? It seems like you're winning by removing sources you don't agree with. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OMG. This isn't the place to get into more battles. I agreed the source proved that opinion (and that there are others), but not it's notability to the article. You seriously want to turn this into your POV? DreamGuy (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) What if I have many like that? And what is POV about video game violence being moral panic? I thought it's one of the most common. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing SYNTH and OR

nb sub-section heading created retrospectively by Pincrete.Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

example of what appears to be unmistakable synth TODAY. What is most worrying is that Mr. Magoo doesn't seem to understand, or care about this, but just pushes on regardless

You're trying to remove two sources because the other one states in 1988 before the term was in use that Bloom began the debate. I fixed it by adding the clarification, but you're still not satisfied. How is it synth after the clarification? No matter what you're not satisfied. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr Magoo, you cannot claim that someone said something, which they patently did not say, simply because you conjecture that they would have said it, if they had known the term. What is absurd about this is the sources you want to use DO say some usable things, simply not what Mr Magoo thinks they would have said - if they had known the term, though in Paglia's case she obviously did know it in 1997. WP is not a private essay site. The changes make the matter worse, not better. Let's logically deduce that Shakespeare would have written 'Home Alone', if film had been around, if, if, if, and then go to the 'Home Alone' page and say he DID write it. What you are doing is almost as absurd as that, it's called WP:SYNTH and your inability, or unwillingness to understand that, combined with the number of edits you are making is making you a huge liability on a sensitive topic area. Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But I'm not doing any of that? I'm not conjecturing anything, Atlas states he began the debate about liberalism in higher education and Paglia states he began the culture wars in which PC theorists were hurt. I describe them describing Bloom having begun the debate, which was soon named political correctness. And I don't state "if they had known the term" because Paglia did and she uses it. Do you want separate sentences or something? It's hard to understand. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I separated the political correctness mention from the rest of the sentence with em dashes, signifying a parenthetical statement. Are you happy now? Mind you the rest of the sources used the term and I'm only doing this because Atlas didn't. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, Not only do you INSIST on your synth, you blatantly misrepresent what I am asking for here, and on talk. Neither Paglia nor Atlas said what you claim they said, it is pure invention on your part. 'Culture war', 'higher education debate', and use of the term 'PC', are closely related, but they are not synonyms, especially in an article about the use of a term. Wall St crash, Great depression, Roosevelt presidency and New Deal are closely related, they are not synonyms. If someone says something about the crash, you cannot claim they were saying it about the new deal! What is difficult to understand about 'they did not say this' ? Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that edit was because Aquillion turned actual quotes into distorted paraphrasals? I didn't revert him completely but I turned them a bit back to resemble the original quotations. In what world is that synth if you make them more like the original quotations? And what you asked for was that I don't misquote Atlas. Paglia you go on about for some reason even though there's no possibility of misquotation here. She says Bloom began culture wars, educational reforms and PC forces lost their prestige. What I added for Atlas were the em dashes to implicate a parenthetical statement. I originally had commas but since you still weren't happy I added the em dashes. They signify it is a parenthesis. Are you honestly only happy with actual direct quotations? I mean the forementioned edit by Aquillion gave as reason that we can't have direct quotations because it's unencyclopedic. When I add quotes you're unhappy and when I don't you're unhappy, even though I absolutely try my best to make the non-quote as quote-like as possible. How in the seven worlds can I ever satisfy you? This just seems like a witchhunt. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

nb the section in which Mr. Magoo above claims Aquillion 'turned actual quotes into distorted paraphrasals', is unconnected to the subject of this synth discussion, Mr. Magoo either is making so many edits he no longer knows what the subject is, or he is intentionally 'muddying the waters'. Pincrete (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What kind of extremely badly faithed and of bad behavior hidden little notes badmouthing me are you trying to hide here? You provided my un-synthesization of his synth as evidence of synth. Aquillion's edit has obviously everything to do with that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, Paglia says 'Bloom began the culture war' she may say that educational reforms and PC forces lost their prestige, however she does not link this either explicitly or implicitly to Bloom (mainly to Clinton). SHE DOES NOT SAY what you claim, either here or in the article, NEITHER DOES ATLAS, you admit that on talk, yet you edit war your favourite phrasing back in. What is difficult for you to understand about 'THEY DO NOT SAY THIS', only Mr Magoo does, for reasons best known to himself, since there are perfectly usable things that Atlas (at least) does say. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But those follow right after. I mean:

I would like to thank you and all the other, superbly well-informed Salon readers for your very interesting questions, most of which I have not had time or space to answer. An ad hoc policy of quick replies may be in order.

Future historians will certainly consider Allan Bloom's surprise mega-bestseller as the first shot in the culture wars that still rage, with oscillating intensity and visibility. Thanks partly to President Clinton's initiatives, educational reform has moved to center stage in the United States. After the long, slow decline of public schools, there are new calls for "standards" and an impatience with the touchy-feely liberal formulas that have left so many underprivileged students behind. On university campuses, the arrogant, mundane, anti-art, PC forces of French theorists and hard-line feminists have finally lost their prestige, even if they still hold lavishly compensated, tenured positions. (For more on this, see my article on gender studies in the July 25 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education.)

When my first book, "Sexual Personae," was released and reviewed in Europe and Britain, my dissertation advisor and mentor, Harold Bloom, was frequently confused with Allan Bloom, and I must admit I was aggravated to be falsely called a disciple of the latter. Nevertheless, I respect Allan Bloom for taking a courageous stand against the entrenched forces of his day, and I am confident that in the long run he will be vindicated and his critics swallowed in obscurity. I agree with both Blooms about the need to defend the canon of great artists and writers, but I differ with them most profoundly on the issue of popular culture, which as a child of television and rock music, I immediately embraced and continue to glorify. Pop is my pagan religion, and I do not agree that it destroys cultivated response to high art.

This is used as one of what ten sources (most of them not even noted at this section because I haven't cared to do that yet) for the statement that "Bloom likely began the debate about higher education" — a statement you agree with, and all our sources likewise name him firstmost and so do Kimball and Din. That's it. That statement is according to you not what the above states. I don't even know how to better point it out than by simply showing the text. And Atlas does state Bloom began the debate about liberalism in education which still rages 10 months on; and then which Bernstein will only days or months apart call the debate about Political Correctness.

And in your rush to edit the media bit from above you make simple mistakes: 690929974. In addition, you seemed to agree with my edits now since you only edited odd bits like from " and " to ".He "? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

1) you shouldn't post long quotes (like the Paglia above), even on noticeboards, it's copyvio and unnec. … … 2) my reply on content matters is here … … 3) are liberalism and PC-ness synonyms? … … 4) copy-editing just means I saw a clearer or less colloquial phrasing, I agree with about one edit in 10 of yours, the other nine are a mess. Pincrete (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to respond in that fashion then you shouldn't leave these arguments here but simply the link to the continuation. I'll reply in a longer fashion there, but: the quote is short enough for anyone to read through in an instant; and I didn't claim they were, the parenthesis political correctness isn't said by Atlas. And lastly I found a book by Atlas where he describes more clearly that it was Bloom who began it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

These ARE long quotes in WP terms, I don't make the copyvio rules, I was just informing you. IF the 'new Atlas source' clearly endorses the claim, obviously the claim can stay. That doesn't alter the fact that you have been fighting tenaciously to retain total OR and Synth and wasting everyone's time persuading yourself it isn't, when a perfectly workable compromise was reachable based on what your sources DO say. Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no set limit and the particular text isn't copyrighted (also fair use). And again, provide even one example of OR or Synth from me. You're falsely accusing me and I have proved so. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the text from LA Times, which Mr. Magoo now insists, justifies this text 'Critics, including Camille Paglia and James Atlas, have pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind as the likely beginning of the modern debate — about what was soon named "political correctness" — in higher education.' I defy anyone to find any mention of Atlas claiming that Bloom started ANYTHING in that text. The Paglia is dealt with previously. I will not post any further 'content matters' here. Mr Magoo does not understand what synth or OR is, is unwilling to learn, and that combined with his insistence on making dozen's of edits per day, tenaciously insisting on his own utter rightness makes him an unacceptable burden on other editors. Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Only it says he began the book wars and assault on whom by the way? Yes, Paglia was shown to say Bloom began the culture wars which changed education and lead to PC forces losing their prestige — utterly proving the statement. And again the dozens of edits I make are to the talk page and are of few letters edits. Only recently I made a bunch of tiny edits to the 1980s section to format the Bernstein bit which I then decided to remove (it was my own addition so it doesn't matter), resulting in those edits changing nothing. Both of the critics state Bloom began the wars. Would you mind stating which wars the two are talking about? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Since unrelated editors have complained about unrelated articles and no changes have been made, maybe we have to go through the whole dispute resolution process. If a RFC is created, ping me. DreamGuy (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out there has been no ill will between me and Aquillion during this time. I've argued with another user on the talk page and above about an unrelated matter, but that's it. I've learned my lessons about wild accusations: in the future I will refrain from accusations and at worst only accuse of bad behavior when it's overt and not covert. I'd like to apologize to Aquillion for accusing his removals as vandalism. I hope we can continue working together harmoniously from here on. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Constant BRD violations and blankings

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

---

Ciphers00 keep ignoring BRD on every article the user is involved. On Paul the Apostle, the user introduced undiscussed and controversial changes [91] that three two different users reverted, but Cipher00 just reverts back, ignoring BRD and claiming no discussion is needed [92], [93]. Despite having been warned for their behavior at Muhammad already, Ciphers also perform undiscussed changes there, again ignoring BRD [94], [95]. And same thing at Al-Qibli Chapel, where it's not just BRD but rampant vandalism as the Ciphers repeatedly deletes all tags from "his" article [96], [97]. This is a user from whom policies mean nothing. By gaming the system to avoid obvious 3RR-violations, Ciphers still ignore BRD on every article to make sure that unless others resort to edit warring, it's his version that carries the day. Jeppiz (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

On Paul of Tarsus, I made uncontroversial firmly sourced changes (per 3 reliable sources + I added 4 more reliable sources on the talk page). User:Favonian passed my changes and didn't revert them. This shows that they were not problematic. The claim of User:Jeppiz that three different editors reverted me but I reverted back is 100% false. It was only Jeppiz whom I reverted back. This is quite evident in the page history.

The rest of his accusations are also false. I removed the tags he added to the article of Al-Qibli Chapel because he added them only to troll me. When I asked him to explain his concerns on the talk page, he didn't. The article was patrolled by User:MarkYabloko. I created it today and was still working on it when user:Jeppiz showed up and started to troll me.

My edit on Muhammad was very minor and absolutely not controversial at all. See it on: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&type=revision&diff=690575987&oldid=690511572 . The criticism section absolutely belongs to the non-Muslim views section. This edit was also thanked by user:SpyButeo. I didn't edit-war or violate any policy at all.

The problem here is that I am being trolled by this person in order to make me quit from here. Please, tell him to stop trolling the new comers.--Ciphers00 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that long WP:NPA and WP:AGF violation, which did not address the topic at all. I posted diffs to all your reverts, so anyone can check for themselves. Jeppiz (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through the diffs, and Jeppiz is correct. The editor is engaged in source falsification, and trying to make pointy edits to prioritize in the opening lead sentence a pointy personal thesis. Shouldn't be editing this or related articles. I suggest a topic ban for a month.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to the claim made by user:Nishidani, I will post the 7 reliable sources (already posted on the talk page of Paul of Tarsus) here. They all support my position. They all can be checked online. There is no "source falsification on my behalf".

1. The Jewish Encyclopedia. SAUL OF TARSUS (known as Paul, the Apostle of the Heathen) The Jewish Encyclopedia.
2. Judaiology: A Study of the Science of Judaism: The Most Misunderstood Religion in the World. Imam Warith-Deen Umar. Page 134
3. More Than a Prophet: An Insider's Response to Muslim Beliefs about Jesus and Christianity. Emir Fethi Caner, Ergun Mehmet Caner. Page 119
4. Twenty-six Reasons why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus. Asher Norman. Feldheim Publishers. 2007. Page 134.
5. Defending the Faith: Nineteenth-Century American Jewish Writing on Christianity and Jesus. George L. Berlin. Page 64.
6. The Making of Theatre History. Paul Kuritz‏. Page 60.
7. Israel's God and Rebecca's Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity : Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal.

Notice that I can add additional sources if needed. My change was per cited sources and is definitely not controversial per these sources.--Ciphers00 (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the page for content disputes, so posting the refs here is not helpful. All users who have reviewed them have rejected them. Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jeppiz, you said in your first post here that "three different users reverted, but Cipher00 just reverts back". I will ask you to name these three different users whom I reverted back. Can you?! No. you can't, because this page history shows that it was only you whom I reverted back. [Notice that user:Favonian kept my changes and didn't revert them]. How can anyone explain this false accusation by you?!--Ciphers00 (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your incompetence lies in the fact that you edited a lead on an historical figure by (a) selective use of sources (b) distorting some of them (c) in a synthetic statement (d) that has no place as the primary definition of the figure. Thus

'is generally regarded by Muslims and many non-Christians to be the founder of Christianity' before stating what the central tradition he belongs to believes is a gross abuse of standard definitions. Take the opening sentence from the Encyclopedia Britannica which you also used:

Saint Paul, the Apostle, original name Saul of Tarsus (born 4 BC?, Tarsus in Cilicia [now in Turkey—died c. AD 62–64, Rome [Italy]), one of the leaders of the first generation of Christians', often considered to be the second most important person in the history of Christianity].

You ignore this part, and just jump right down the Britannica page to get your juicy tidbit, which then displaces the lead definition we had. It's fine to add later, what Muslims or Jews think, but has no place at the very outset of the lead.

(2) 'many non-Christians' is your synthesis, and, if one checked the sources, turns out to be a euphemism for Jews.

(3) The actual founder of the Christian Church as opposed to Judaism; born before 10 C.E.; died after 63 comes from Kaufmann Kohler in the Jewish Encyclopedia. That is not a fact, it is a point-of-view, ascribable to the writer.

(4)‘Islam sees Paul as the founder of apostate Christianity

Note that we have 'apostate Christianity' which means that the writer, whether he likes it or not, is being ambiguous, and we, as opposed to you, cannot determine whether he means Paul was an apostate from Christianity, or Christianity is a form of apostasy.

(5))Paul, the true founder of Christianity is contextually a statement attributed to Jews, not Muslims.

Neither Jews nor Muslims can be synthesized as 'many non-Christians'

(6)The only serious scholarly source you have (Alan Segal) is this

which states however that 'Paul has often been seen as the founder of Christianity'

This is true, but it is appropriately phrased as, not a fact, but a point of view, and is not ascribed to Jews or Muslims alone, appropriately, since many Christians might well endorse that view. I happen, as a devout indifferentist to religious beliefs or concepts of God, think that Paul rather than Jesus, founded Christianity. But my views are irrelevant here.

All these are primary school first grade Wikipedia bloopers, aside from the error of trying to prioritize a set of opinions that are sectarian, and not historical. I could go on, but these few examples indicate sheer incompetence, and you need to stay away from these kinds of articles until you master the principles of historical writing, and re revert wars with experienced editors like Jeppiz, the proper way to conduct yourself (not least by using the talk page if you encounter a disagreement)Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I agree on the topic ban for a month-- how do we define the topics bannned? -- since Al-Qibli Chapel and Paul the Apostle are not that related to one another. tahc ^chat 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Religious articles topic ban covers both.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User Nishidani & User tahc, your mate user:Jeppiz claimed in his first post here that "three different users reverted, but Cipher00 just reverts back". I asked him to name these three different users whom I reverted back according to his accusation, but he couldn't. why couldn't he?! because his accusation was false. This explains it all. If you can't name these alleged 3 editors mentioned in the original accusation of Jeppiz, then it is senseless to continue in further accusations, because your failure to name the editors proves that you are fabricating charges against me.--Ciphers00 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ciphers00:, not responding to your demands right away is not "a failure". Yes, I claimed that three users reverted your version. That was a mistake, turns out it was only two. My apologies for that, though it changes nothing about your problematic behavior across multiple articles. First 66.114.14.54 [98], then I [99], and thirdly Lindert [100]. That makes three users, so I was perfectly right. Will you know apologize for all the accusations and WP:NPA violations about me "fabricating" making "false accusations? Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ciphers00: I was checking ANI and found this here. Check the history again; here, the IP 66.114.14.54 reverted you manually, but that was later reverted by Favonian since there was no summary. (the IP's edit was actually vandalism, not a revert) A day later, Jeppiz restored the previous version as shown on this diff per consensus and citing WP:POINT, which you then reverted twice (claiming that the change "doesn't need further discussion" at the second revert), and here Lindert reverted you. So, by my count, 3 2 different editors reverted you, including the IP user.

Side note - Jeppiz's edit summary here appeared to be a little aggressive, for reference. --TL22 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ToonLucas22: You're right. I was a bit exasperated by having the same user violating WP:BRD at so many different articles, and did not find the user's description of my previous edit as "deceptive" particularly helpful. I do try to be polite but when you come across the same user violating policies across the board, it gets a bit tiresome. Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

100% False. You must certainly be confused. The IP didn't revert me at all. The IP's edit was in line 130 of the article as shown in this diff, while my edit was in the lead of the article and in the category section as shown here. The IP edit was irrelevant to my edit. I wasn't reverted by any IP at all. User:Jeppiz, TL22 you should apologize for falsely claiming that I was reverted by an IP.--Ciphers00 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually went and checked the IP's edit and it appears that it was vandalism, not a revert. Still, 2 different users reverted you, and you should assume good faith rather than engaging in harassment against other editors. --TL22 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jeppiz, you should admit that you have made a false accusation when you said that I was reverted by an IP before going any where else in this discussion.--Ciphers00 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Ciphers00 on all articles related to religion, as per Nishidani and tahc. The fact that the user is edit warring against consensus on multiple pages, and insist that everybody disagreeing is "confused" or "deceptive" is evidence enough of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jeppiz (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment In addition to the edit warring, WP:NPA violations and repeated removals of tags, now Ciphers00 also deleted my support, three times in a row here on ANI(!) for the topic ban.[101], [102], [103] Vandalizing and edit warring on ANI, even further evidence of the problem behavior of the user. Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Attention, Administrators. The above may look like a content dispute, but the evidence of the last few minutes shows a serious behavioural problem that requires immediate attention.

• 19:58, 14 November 2015‎
• 20:07, 14 November 2015‎
• 20:12, 14 November 2015‎

These reverts only underline that the editor, whose edits have been questioned, won't listen, erases information, and is indifferent to the normal procedures governing wiki editing.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Ciphers00 vandalizing ANI three times in a matter of 14 minutes 19:58, 20:07‎ and 20:12, on top of all the edit warring in articles and WP:NPA violations, show beyond any doubt that the user is WP:NOTHERE. If I first supported a topic ban, the repeated vandalism of ANI makes me lean towards an indef block from WP altogether. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Notice: This is not a voting game. I reverted Jeppiz because he resorted to voting instead of addressing the points of the discussion. Before going any further, user:Jeppiz should name the 3 editors he mentioned in his original accusation. He claimed in his original accusation that "I was reverted by 3 different editors, but Cipher00 just reverts back". I asked him to name these 3 editors, but he couldn't. Recently, he made a horrible false claim when he said the IP change in line 130 here was a revert of my edit in the lead here even though it is quite evident that IP change was irreverent to my change. I see no reason to go any where else after it has become very clear that Jeppiz is launching false claims and accusations.--Ciphers00 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, per WP:TPO, you shouldn't remove others' comments. If the proposal is spurious, it will be rejected by other editors. clpo13_(talk) 20:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A while ago already I recognized the IP did not revert Ciphers00, struck it, and changed it to saying two users reverted [104]. That is not an excuse for Ciphers00 vandalizing ANI three times by removing comments about themselves. That you really think it's up to you to decide where this discussion goes "I see no reason to go any where else" and believing you can decide who gets to post on ANI really says it all. Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not at all a valid reason for reverting. Altrough voting is not a substitute for discussion, it is a complement for discussion, and works by WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:TPO. --TL22 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

A topic ban was initially proposed, but given the WP:AGF & WP:NPA violations, incompetence, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, recent WP:TPO violations and maybe WP:TEND behavior, I think its better to block Ciphers00 for a period of indefinite. Votes below. --TL22 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef When a user is reported to ANI for disruptive behavior and responds by vandalizing ANI three times, then there's not really much more to say. Jeppiz (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that Ciphers00 has not edited since yesterday. Their last edit was here, where they clarified the IP's edit. Since blocks are preventative and not punitive, I think it would be better to close this without action. --TL22 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I see your point but would disagree. I think the proposed topic ban for a month, which got the support of all users who commented, makes sense. Ciphers00 has disappeared for a few days before, only to return unchanged. If they are away for a month, the topic ban does not affect them. If they plan to lay low until this is close and then start over, the proposed topic ban is very much preventative and stops further disruptions. Jeppiz (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, bad faith, and unfounded accusations by User:Rationalobserver

I am bringing a recent interaction with Rationalobserver (RO) (notified) here for discussion. During the interaction RO made personal attacks, assumed bad faith, attempted to further stir the pot by trying to drag other editors in, and made baseless claims against me of unethical behavior based on no supporting evidence whatsoever. Despite editors (other than me) questioning the foundation for her claims, she continued to behave in an aggressive and uncivil manner. Rationalobserver has had personal attacks removed in the past [105], posts with the potential for outing [106], and was also here on 12 Oct 2015 (but I cannot say why, there are no diffs as they all appear to have been suppressed). She was given an “only warning” [107] for a personal attack on 1 Nov 2015.

In a discussion thread regarding the use of OTRS images in the Wikicup[108], she asked a series of questions to which I openly responded [109], and in detail [110]. A somewhat bizarre question about payment regarding the creation of currency images [111] led me to cautiously ask about the relevance [112]. The next reply included accusations, scenarios of people being stripped of awards, questions of "double dipping", and pinging all active and one former judge[113]. I told her that up to that point, I would have been happy to answer her questions[114]. With assumptions spiraling out of control, RO insinuated [115], inferred [116], and finally accused me of unethical behavior [117]. To further stir the pot, she pinged the contest's runner up looking for support [118].

I responded pointing her to information on my user page that would have answered several of her questions and perhaps prevented a reasonable person from flying off the handle and that further unfounded accusations would result in an ANI case[119]. Her follow-up response demonstrated no insight whatsoever as she simply changed the direction of her attack [120]. This was followed a seemingly conditional apology on my talk page[121], additional blame directed at me[122] and striking of some (but not all) accusations[123]. More jabs[124], followed by her discussing a file with my real name as photographer in comparison with the numismatic images where I do not use my name[125]. In the same edit she tries to back out of the whole discussion, and was called out for doing so[126]. I responded that she and I had a date at ANI[127] due to all of the above, but the final straw was her pulling links/an easy connection to my real name into a rant about my alleged lack of ethics[128].

This is at least the second identity for this user (this information used to be posted on her user page with some vague reference to ArbCom). I would certainly like to see some kind of corrective action taken or imposed to help steer RO away from this kind of exchange with other editors.--Godot13 (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks or unfounded accusations, but I did make the mistake of assuming after Godot refused to answer the question of whether he was being paid to create images he later claimed for Wikicup points. Immediately after he denied getting paid I did strike all comments there that made assumptions ([129]). I was merely trying to understand why so many of Godot's Wikicup submissions are credited to a business, not an individual. The charge of outing is absurd, as Godot put his name on files he submitted, and he's mentioned several times in this report that his real name is found in some of his image summaries. He put the info onWiki, not me, and I only mentioned it because another editor suggested I shouldn't ask Godot what his profession is ([130]), but alas Godot has freely disclosed that info at his user page, and I didn't ask what his profession was; I asked if he had been financially compensated for images he submitted.

I don't see this report as good-faith; I see it as an attempt to get me punished for something that happened yesterday. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and I've already stated that I've taken all Wikicup pages off my watchlist, as I want nothing to do with that competition ([131]). I never said Godot was unethical, I said that it's unethical for a professional to compete against amateurs, and I stand by that as an accurate assessment of global consensus regarding the rules of competition. RO^(talk) 18:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"You have now inferred that I am acting unethically..." - "Well, yes. It's considered unethical for a professional to compete against amateurs."[132] If the first two words of your response never existed, you might be able to make a half-assed semantics argument. The fact that I exercised (good) judgement in trying to understand the motivation for your questions and therefore declined to immediately respond is no excuse for calling my ethics, sportmanship, etc. into question. You were told be me and others that you were crossing a line, told at least twice by me that continuing on your course would end up here, but it seems you were/are unable to contain yourself. --Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

All those statements were conditional on if you had been paid to create images. As soon as you clarified that you hadn't I dropped that aspect just as I said I would. It was an honest question that you are now blowing out of proportion. I twice said that I didn't understand the licensing and permission stuff ([133]). You credited many of your images to a corporation, which I thought implied a professional relationship or something, and I wanted to know why they weren't credited to you if they were your images. It was a very simple question that could have been easily answered. I'm sorry if I've touched a nerve here, but your overreaction is disruptive. I said I'd drop yesterday, and I did, so please drop the stick. RO^(talk) 20:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Dropping the stick is good, not picking it up in the first place is much better. The Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring rules state: "The most important rule is that the WikiCup is just a bit of fun — at the end of the day, we're all here to improve Wikipedia. The second most important rule is to treat Wikipedia and other users with respect. If through the WikiCup any participants are hurting the encyclopedia (whether through abusing the rules/systems, creating a negative atmosphere, or whatever else), they will be removed from the Cup." Concerns about the competition should have be been politely relayed to cup judges Figureskatingfan and Sturmvogel 66. Questions about Godot's work should have been made on his talk page before pursuing further discussion. e.g. RO: I don't understand the license terms -- were you paid to take those pictures you entered in Wikicup? G: No, ... RO: Ok, thanks. An ounce of drama prevention is worth a pound of ANI thread. NE Ent 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RO- You have a habit of conveniently not understanding things when a course of events turns against you. Frankly, I'm not worried about the opinions of the Wikicup participants for two reasons: 1) I believe they know I played a fair game by the rules, and 2) they are all well acquainted with your passion for excessive drama. My concern, however, are the organizations with whom I have established relationships beneficial to Wikipedia (i.e., blanket OTRS approvals) to whom I now need to convey and/or explain the ridiculousness of what has transpired simply because their names are mentioned in connection with these unfounded allegations of unethical behavior. I informed you on my talk page that an apology would only be sufficient if it was unconditional and it was made in the same thread with her accusations[134]. Not only was this not done, but it was followed by additional insults[135]. I'm not an admin and I certainly do not understand all the nuances between blocking, topic banning, and an "indef", but I am able to recognize (disclaimer, speaking in the abstract) when someone is potentially dangerous, and has the capacity (no disclaimer, case in point) to do damage to Wikipedia and it's contributors (e.g., images). Your mistake here was (as NE Ent stated above), not dropping the stick.--Godot13 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RO's questions were, to paraphrase, have you put enough work into your Wikicup entries to warrant consideration, and were you paid to produce them (because she believes Wikicup is an amateur event and submitting professional images would be unethical). Reasonable questions. The problem, as I see it, is in her style of address, her assumption that your querying her motives was an admission you were paid, and her very insensitive linking of one group of anonymous works with your real name. Have I got that right, Godot13? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Pinging Godot13. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)-b

Anthonyhcole- There's a bit more to it, but that basically covers it (a very passive-aggressive approach)...--Godot13 (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Actually this is an account that should be site-banned. — Ched :  ?  06:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I really don't think a site ban is the solution, here, Ched. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• A siteban would be overkill, a punitive measure. Therefore, let's not do that. GoodDay (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• No. A site ban won't have any effect but to move the editor behind the now blocked account to a new, unknown name. Utterly futile and self-defeating. Moronic. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• RO, your "...it sounds like you are indeed being paid to create images you then use to compete in the Wikicup. I think that's unethical ..." was inappropriate. Very inappropriate. You're accusing him of being a sleazy cheat, and pointing everyone to where they'll find his real name. Based on what? Some conjectures about attribution that you admit you have a tenuous grasp on. That is just awful behaviour. No one wants to collaborate with someone who does that kind of thing. While you carry on with this kind of extreme suspiscion and animosity, you're just going to keep being drummed out of pockets of this project, until, yes, site ban. You need to start learning lessons. Begin with this experience. Reflect on what you just did with those comments at Wikicup. Try to see it from our (Godot's and the onlookers') perspectives. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Godot has been kind enough to get coin images to populate my numismatic articles. To my knowledge, RO is simply wrong. I don't believe uploading images for pay would be against any policy or the terms of use anyway? I can't act myself, but I remind fellow admins that casting aspersions is one of the things the ArbCom is making very clear is not allowed, and we are to maintain an environment in which the encyclopedia can be improved, and Godot has helped in the improvement immensely. There are articles I've written to fit images he's been able to get, for example Huguenot-Walloon Tercentenary half dollar, presently a GA but on my list for FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd really like RO to seriously reflect on this. I'll ask her to take a week off. Try to imagine for a while, RO, that what you did there really was really, seriously offensive. What do you say, RO? Take a break? Think about what we're saying here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• There are situations off wiki that violate "outing". But I am willing to stand by the "ON-wiki" situation of being a disruptive account. — Ched :  ?  07:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with Ched, this is just another example of the ongoing problems. The RO account was created less than 18 months ago; within weeks warnings were being given out about personal attacks - just check that version of the talk page generally; accuses others of personal attacks while changing policy to be inline with her assertions; more personal attacks; despite initially working with other editors and awarding barnstars, this quickly changes for the worse. There are many other examples before we arrive at Montanabw’s RfA; this was shortly followed by attacks on Dr. Blofeld who had previously helped/supported RO. This is all intermingled with several announcements of retiring and false promises to change her behaviour: blocked by Ddstretch in February 2015 for personal attacks but unblocked by Coffee. The list just goes on and on with far too many to link individually to - taking short breaks just doesn't work. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Another instance is Maunus who she had worked with but later turned on. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. Kudos to Ched for doing what needed to be done. Rationalobserver has had more chances to reform and change her behavior than Wilt Chamberlain has had lovers. Enough already. If drama is what she wants, try your local repertory theatre instead. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. The WikiCup drama increases every year I swear. At least we get good content out of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Can you all please try to repress the grave dancing? And Ched, you were the wrong person for this job. [136] Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, the block is punitive, not preventative. RO does need to be sternly admonished for outing, however, there is a mitigating circumstance to all of this wherein she and I were both outed by another editor. The issue was brought up right here at ANI, and unceremoniously closed by an admin involved in this very discussion, with no consequences whatsoever to that editor. So, the correct response here is to acknowledge the incorrect action of not addressing outing at that time, and to explain to RO that despite the message that was sent at that time by that admin that outing is a tolerable action, it's not. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• • There is no grave dancing anywhere in this thread. Expressing support for a block and explaining why is necessary and appropriate for the block to have community support. More and more, I'm seeing terms like grave dancing, pile on, mob rule and other terms misused. For the record, I was one of RO's supporters until she turned on me for helping her, like all the other former supporters listed above. I don't want her blocked, but what other choice is there? She hasn't kept her word on any efforts to reform. The community is exhausted. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Anthonyhcole: I also object to being accused of grave dancing; I have simply tried to demonstrate that this latest incident involving Godot is typical of RO's behaviour. Viriditas was another example that had actually sprung to mind but several others have also been subjected to it over what is a very short period of time. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure you didn't say anything after the block, did you? Ah. Your post was after the block. Nevertheless, I wasn't referring to that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

RO's last block was 48 hours, which the community overturned after about an hour. IMHO, this block should be 'no longer' then 1-week. I'm disappointed that it's an indef. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

However, her block at the beginning of April was for six months - yet more false promises were made to get that lifted. This is all just wash, rinse, repeat .... SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Which was overturned after 25 days. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I was aware of that, which is why I stated: "yet more false promises were made to get that lifted". SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Which happened due to promises by RO which were not kept. The duration doesnt really matter if people keep unblocking the disruptive user. No doubt RO can make more promises to lift the indef from a gulli... I mean sympathetic admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Good block--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If I may, if there is anyone here that doesn't think that Eric Corbett didn't deserve an indefinite block for saying: “The easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.” shouldn't think that RO deserves one for saying: "Well, yes. It's considered unethical for a professional to compete against amateurs." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

And as much as I refrain from screaming "male bias" because I think a lot of time that accusation is unfounded, I'm having a hard time convincing myself it's unfounded here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@LynnWysong: I respectfully suggest you read the entire thread as it is not about a solitary comment made but an inherent behaviour trait. Male bias? What on earth do you mean by that? SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have read the entire thread. Why do people defend Eric Corbett's "inherent behaviour trait", which also is not based on a "solitary comment" but one that was so egregious that it did get national publicity, but immediately dog pile on RO for her behavior? Is it because she is a woman, and confrontational behavior is less acceptable when exhibited by someone who is traditionally expected to be submissive? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you find it necessary to bring Eric into very thread? RO being a woman has nothing whatsoever to do with this. I will not comment further on this thread as it seems some are incapable of focusing on the topic at hand. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Buh bye. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Horrible block-- Not only is Ched Involved, there was absolutely no reason to indef her account, especially without any type of ANI consensus. Look how easy it is for the EC fan club to go around and indef block female editors who don't know their place, while admins like Neelix and editors like EC himself have been given so many chances it boggles the mind. Absolutely a revenge block and Ched should lose his tools. Dave Dial (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)So sick of the double standards, but don't know enough about the RO account to make a total judgement. Dave Dial (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Bad block Regardless of RO's past behavior, this sort of action should be by community consensus. Going straight to an indefinite is nothing but punitive. clpo13_(talk) 16:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• People accuse me of being block heavy, and Ched, you just indeffed someone who was the subject of an ongoing ANI thread that does not currently at all support an indefinite block where there's additional accusations of you being involved? That's not really appropriate behavior to take in the middle of an ongoing discussion thread at ANI about her behavior. Without an ongoing apparent issue during the course of this thread that would necessitate her blocking, how is indeffing her so she can't participate a good idea or anything but punitive? I chose not to block Neelix in the middle of a thread about him involving a much more massive violation of policy, as did every other admin until/unless consensus to do so developed, because there was no ongoing behavior on his part where a block would've been preventative rather than punitive. If this thread winds up developing consensus for an indef, so be it, but there's clearly not one now, nor is there an apparent reason why blocking her before consensus develops when there's an open ANI thread about her would be preventative rather punitive. I need to run out, but Ched, undo your block, and let another admin perform it if and when consensus forms here that an indef is appropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• bad block please undo. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Maunus - per WP:BEANS I won't point to various off-wiki and revdel stuff, but there are enough on-wiki diffs with multiple people to justify the block. — Ched :  ?  18:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

" I won't point to various off-wiki and revdel stuff..." Not right. You can't block someone and then refuse to submit the justification for it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That is for a consensus to decide.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ched, the only people who could view revdeled stuff are admins and above, all of whom are presumably trusted to view it. Moreover, unless it's already hit OS, I see absolutely no revdeled stuff of relevance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn block as it appears that Ched was WP:INVOLVED in the issue. An uninvolved administrator can then perform the block again. --TL22 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block – This has been a longtime coming. Is there a reason why LynnWysong and Dave Dial are trotting out the same, boring "EC fan club" bullshit? It is of no help here. Cassianto^Talk 19:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, maybe you could limit your comments to real reasons why you think this is a good block, rather than make snarky comments towards those that have provided reasons as to why it's a bad one. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

...and LynnWysong, maybe you can stick to the topic in hand and not throw fuel on the fire by commenting on something that has fuck all to do with this subject. I don't know what you hoped to achieve by shoehorning Eric into this thread. Or perhaps I do. Cassianto^Talk 20:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The topic is the double standard. Should I throw in a few "shits" and "fucks" so that it's more apparent to you? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Do what you like; you seem to always do. Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, Lynn likes to bring up Eric in the hope of furthering her gender-politics. It has nothing to do with the current issue of RO except RO happens to be female. Of course anyone who has more than half a brain knows the problem was not blocking EC, it was in preventing him from being unblocked by his pet admins. Lo, RO has been unblocked at Corbett-like speeds, thus showing equality is alive and well on Wikipedia and Lynn's attempt to wedge in her gender crusade were a wasted effort. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone could prepare a color-coded chart comparing the block records of the two, and actually try to prove that point. As well as to try to prove I'm on a "gender crusade". Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• We didn't block Neelix who created a much bigger clusterfuck than this could possibly involve within the last week under the 'preventative not punitive' mantra. Indeffing someone in the middle of an ANI discussion about her behavior makes it look like those arguing enforcement is sexist sure have a point. Is there any harm to the wiki that is being prevented by allowing RO email access and TPA access, but not allowing her to defend herself in this section? More than one person challenging this block is an admin, you are perfectly within policy to point out any revdeled content to us privately rather than making us dig through your admin action logs Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Ched:, unless it's hit oversight already, I see absolutely no actions in your admin logs or in RO's logs indicating that there is revdeled material that supports an indef block in the middle of an ongoing ANI thread about RO's behavior. Please explain how indeffing someone without consensus (but letting them keep TPA and email) in the middle of an ANI thread about their behavior is preventative. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know the background here, but do we have a compelling reason not to allow email and talk page access? It seems reasonable to allow this, at least for the purposes of challenging the block. Never mind, I apologize, it seems I misunderstood Kevin's comment. Gamaliel (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, we don't have a compelling reason for the block at this point in the first place. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nor do we have a compelling enough reason to unblock. RO always has been a troublemaker and I think people have eventually had enough of her. Cassianto^Talk 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Compelling reason to unblock: letting her participate in an ANI thread about her behavior until consensus as to whether or not to block her is established. We didn't block someone who created thousands of redirects to the effect of tumorous titties, so blocking someone (who happens to not be a guy) in the middle of an ANI thread where consensus to block could've very well been established looks pretty damn odd. We don't as a general rule indef people who annoy us without consensus. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• What does gender have to do with this? Cassianto^Talk 20:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Question What in the BLUE HELL does any of this have to do with User:Eric Corbett??? I blocked for continual and habitual disruptive editing. period. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Can you please explain what disruption you stopped by throwing an arbitrary indef on a user whose behavior was already the subject of an ANI thread? Once things hit ANI, blocks are handled far more by consensus, not by individual admin's feelings. All your block did was prevent RO from defending or explaining her behavior in this thread, and hindering a consensus from developing Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ched - there would have been nothing to lose by letting the ANI discussion take its course. You seem to have been hasty here. pablo 20:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• This appears to be more of a gender block than anything else so I guess for Wikipedia, it's just business as usual! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Question With all things considered though, why is this indef? JAGUAR  21:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This was very poorly done, and not by the appropriate person. I don't find "In reviewing your posts, I have decided to block your (sic) for disruptive editing" to be a sufficient rationale for indef blocking someone. We seem to have forgotten we're dealing with a human being, one who perhaps has made some bad decisions or acted poorly, but who certainly doesn't deserve to be slammed and locked into a closet without the benefit of full explanation and discussion. For the blocking admin to claim they weren't already carrying around a personal opinion about Rationalobserver is ludicrous. Drmies and Ched should be ashamed of their "I like to be fucked" and "reach around" remarks, regardless of what films they were quoting. I'm agog at what kind of culture has developed here where it's acceptable to speak to people this way. This block should be undone at once, and consensus allowed to develop here for the appropriate action. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't act so gullible and easy to manipulate. Those comments were made on a user talk page that RO barged in on and were not directed towards her but were meta-commentaries on the discussion. She's bringing this up to distract you from the real problem, like she's done ten-thousand times before. Wise up. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Get your facts straight, Viriditas. I started that thread you say I barged into ([137]). RO^(talk) 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • My facts are straight. I said you barged in on another user talk page, not a thread. You don't control what is discussed on other user talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop it Viriditas. She didn't "barge in" on Drmies talk page. She started the thread. Of course the subsequent comments were directed at her. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should I stop correcting errors? You should stop making them. RO barged in on the talk page. Just because a user creates a thread does not mean a comments in that thread are about or directed towards that user. RO's claims of sexism in this instance are patently false, and she's crying wolf to distract everyone from her bad behavior here. I'm very concerned about how you and RO devote an enormous amount of energy towards attacking other users and then blaming them for your bad behavior. Like how the both of you teamed up agains Montanabw and continue to attack her. Wikipedia isn't a MMORPG for you to go after other women and have little battles in your quest to become Queen Bee. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide proof for the aspersions you cast. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Make that proof for the sexist aspersions you cast. Queen Bee???!!! JHFC. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment All I can say is I'm sincerely sorry I assumed Godot had been paid to create images he submitted to Wikicup. I don't understand the licensing stuff, and it looked like these images were created by a company, not an individual. I'm used to permissions being to editors, not some auction house. This was bad form, and I'm not proud of it, but I learned a valuable lesson, and I'll do my best to AGF at all time; 24/7. I apologize, Godot13. Sorry to have been a bother. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. I'm a flawed person, and I make mistakes. I try my best to own up and learn when I do, and that's all I can promise. RO^(talk) 21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't the above rather reminiscent of the apparent contrition shown the last time Rationalobserver was trying to get out of a lengthy block: "... The last thing I ever want to do is discourage anyone from contributing to Wikipedia, and I pledge to never again make heated comments at talk pages. I promise to walk away from the keyboard whenever I feel frustrated with an editor's comments or actions, and I won't ever repeat the mistakes that got me blocked. More importantly, I understand that what I did was disruptive, and I acknowledge that mistake. I should have known better, and I sincerely apologize and promise to never repeat that lapse of judgment. ... I promise to stop personalizing content disputes and pledge to assume good faith on the part of others. I deserve another chance to become a productive member of this community, and if unblocked I agree to refrain from the disruptive behaviors that earned me this block." (Rationalobserver, 23 April 2015) What confidence can the community have that if Rationalobserver is unblocked we won't be back here again for the same reasons in another three months? --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That was 7 months ago, not 3, but are you suggesting that two or three lapses of judgment per year justifies an indeff on an otherwise productive content creator? RO^(talk) 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, I say this with no bias as to the actual events. But answering your question: "are you suggesting that two or three lapses of judgment per year justifies an indeff on an otherwise productive content creator?" Possibly. If each of those two or three lapses does, in fact, discourage another editor from contributing to Wikipedia, then it is a simple calculation: lose one editor, or potentially lose two or three a year. Harrias ^talk 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I don't think I've ever driven anyone away from anything. I took all the relevant pages off my watchlist and will most likely never interact with Godot again. RO^(talk) 22:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not good enough though RO. If it's not Eric, Cassianto, Montanabw, Victoriaearle, Maunus, me, Godot etc it'll be somebody else. You demonstrated with your massive overreaction to my editing of the Sinatra article that you don't have the temperament to edit here. There's only so many times you can act that irrationally and apologise for it. I really tried my very best to get you to be productive and give you several chances to shine and to try to stop taking things personally but you're in denial, and have the tendency to shift the blame onto others and the things they say. What you did last month on here in the last month was bad enough but what you've done since on Wiki'ocracy is against the very fabric of editing here and beyond spiteful. It's dangerous to people in real life. You know deep down that turning this into a gender thing is deplorable but I genuinely believe you can't help act this way. From my perspective it's very sad because I see what you can do when you set your mind to it in terms of content and why I would stick up for you, but I can no longer do this has you've demonstrated that you're naturally a petty person who can't edit without conflicting with people. It's deeply ingrained in your psyche to view everything in terms of a personal struggle, even at the best of times. You think everybody is out to get you from the outset, and that every edit made around you is done for malicious reasons. If there wasn't that sort of mentality there in the first place things would run a lot more smoothly. I'm just starting to see a regular pattern in your behaviour, you make promises that things won't happen again but they keep happening, and I genuinely believe you can't help it. The sad thing is that you view anybody who is anything less than gushing about you as an enemy, including myself. I was really going to avoid commenting here but c'mon RO, how many chances are you going to get to stop this sort of thing? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this some new fangled FUD? Does someone need a trout whacking here??? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed, that this discussion over RO's behaviour/conduct, has morphed into a female vs male thing. Very disappointed indeed :( GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So am I. I think we all know why it's turned out this way. And it doesn't take a genius to work out why Eric's name has been mentioned. Maybe Lynn whatshername and Gorman can explain their motives? Cassianto^Talk 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Since it doesn't take a genius, why don't you explain it Cassianto? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What, I have to explain the thought process in you mentioning Eric and Gorman mentioning gender? Don't be a (Personal attack removed). Cassianto^Talk 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cassianto, please justify implying I'm a "fucking moron." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Refer to your comments above; you'll soon work out why. Cassianto^Talk 09:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are ahead of yourself Lynn. But we can see what's going to happen in the future, when dozens of editors have been banned by Arbcom from discussing gender, the second a debate is not going a certain way, someone will just say "gender" or "Eric" and half those in the debate will be instantly silenced! God help us if Gorman becomes an Arb. Giano (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Red Herring, Giano. No, this is not a "gender gap" issue. It's a double standard issue, with part of the double standard being the expectations of male vs female behavior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Giano, if I became an arb, I would, unfortunately, have to recuse from cases involving you. If I didn't, I'd much rather ban you for your inability to follow NPA rather than anything to do with gender, and leave Eric happily editing away. Cassianto: WTF? I had more respect for you than to randomly make a comment like that. It's sad that both of you are hijacking a thread that should be about the behavior of RO. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This thread was hijacked long before Giano and I came along. It's us who want to keep this thread strictly about RO and for it not to blur into an argument about Eric and gender. Cassianto^Talk 09:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. RO was nice to me for months, and tried to make me one of their "go to" admins. Then I criticized one of their FACs. In response RO made an edit that indirectly referred to harassment I had experienced because of Wikipedia. I wasn't able to ask for action without pointing to my own harassment. I know that RO has done similar things to others. These are the games that are being played. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's sad that this comment is likely to be buried in an avalanche of Giano and Cassianto. I'm not sure how to constructively restart this thread with the amount of shit that's landed in it, but would encourage people to read Sarah's comment above. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Sarah, I have no flipping idea what you're talking about, but I'll bet you misinterpreted something I said or did as a reference to your issue, which I didn't know about until you mentioned it here. RO^(talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment In my interactions with RO I have found this editor friendly and constructive, willing to act on suggestions for improvements to articles, and a pleasure to work with. Tim riley talk 00:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked

As a courtesy to Rationalobserver and Kevin Gorman I have unblocked RO so that she may participate in this discussion. (Any admin is free to revert this action if they disagree, and/or once the discussion is concluded.) 28bytes (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A terrible decision, but entirely predictable. See you here for the next round. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• It may be courteous 28bytes, but this will now drag the dramah out to its last breath. Luckily, I've restocked on popcorn today. Cassianto^Talk 21:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Watch out for the grannies. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have full trust in 28 to do what is right for the project. I did what I thought was right for the project. — Ched :  ?  21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• It is a common practice to unblock someone so they can participate in a discussion about them. It is hardly a "terrible decision". The understanding of course is that they don't use it for any other purpose. HighInBC 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you 28. Although it's unfortunately going to be difficult to reset this thread to be about the behavioral issues in question, especially given recent standards at ANI, I view unblocking someone to participate in a thread about themselves to be eminently sensible, given that it still allows a consensus to block to form if needed, and it's rather uncommon for someone participating in their own ANI thread to need a preventative block in the process, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of possible admin actions

I'd like to request that suggestions and discussion of possible admin actions be placed in this section, as the previous sections have turned into discussion of the merits of the indef block (now undone) and unfortunately devolved into name-calling and further gender-based remarks. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm pinging MastCell, Drmies and Mike V as they've commnted or acted on this before as uninvolved admins. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You just pinged three editors who agree with you. Haven't any admins that disagreed interacted with me? RO^(talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree on what? Drmies (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Spike - I have no idea where you're trying to go with this. What the HELL does any of this have to do with gender? — Ched :  ?  22:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ya know what? I. DON'T. CARE. ... ya'all do whatever. The level of stupidity that this has risen to is beyond my comprehension. — Ched :  ?  23:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I propose that this thread is tainted by Sarah's canvassing (see above) and Ched's mid-process indeff. A fair result would be to close this as resolved. RO^(talk) 23:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal declined. Previously involved admins do not constitute a carefully selected crowd, picked so that a predetermined result is reached. I had no idea that you and Sarah had cooperated in the past; if I did, I have mercifully forgotten. Sarah, the one who argued for your unblock, after you had been accused of being a Jazzerino sock--Jazzerino, an editor who sought and found trouble everywhere he looked, who claimed it was his frat brothers/housemates doing the socking, who claimed he was black so he could accuse other editors of racism.

    I don't believe I ever blocked you, and I think your carefully crafted insults to me were concocted only for you to claim that I am INVOLVED with you. Well, I'm not. I personally don't care whether you stay or go, but you're no good to our beautiful project. Wikipediocracy is a much more suitable place for you; I'm sure there's many an editor there who will like what you have to bring to the table, editors who are even more impulsive, cliquey, dishonest, unfailingly sarcastic, arrogant, and opinionated than me. I support the indefinite block, and I'm wondering about the length of that rope graciously granted to you by 28bytes. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Drmies for my confusion, but are you implying that RO started the thread on your talk page nine months ago in anticipation of this conflict? What "carefully crafted" insults are you talking about? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, not this particular one, since Rationalobserver couldn't have seen this particular one coming. The insults are the one in the thread you saw fit to ask me about (as if they just came to your attention), and another one a few weeks or months earlier. It's a well-known tactic, and someone who claims to have been on this site for ten years or more has time enough to master it. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. And, as I stated when I asked you about those "insults", I think it is highly debatable that they should be characterized that way. Given the events of the past four weeks, those statements seem to be eerily intuitive. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what events you are referring to. I've been quite inactive recently, and to my knowledge I haven't interacted with Rationalobserver in a long time, or even discussed them. "Intuitive"? I have intuitions too, some of which confirmed by lengthy experience with off-wiki harassers. Or perhaps you have a different term for what some editors are doing on a certain external website discussing this here website. Again, if you had real misgivings about the remarks, and a different reading of Rationalobserver's insults, and an honest desire to address them and make a difference™, you could have brought those up on my talk page at any time, but I think I intuit correctly that you or someone else saved them for a more high-profile forum. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I just became aware of that thread the other day, and I was appalled by it. You keep using the excuse that it's on your talk page, where you should be able to express yourself freely, but I don't buy it. It's like saying you should be able to express yourself freely on fb, then act shocked when your employer fires you for indiscrete posts there. In any event, the recent events I am referring to is the Atlantic article and the kerfluffle over Eric Corbett. RO came on to your webpage making the point that protecting Eric Corbett was not going to end well, and instead of addressing what she was saying, you choose to characterize it as a personal attack, and then let the convo devolve into, as Anthonyhcole so aptly put it, a Frat boy free-for-all. So when, several months later, an article called The Sexism of Wikipedia comes out, and ends up in an arbcom action with Eric Corbett, well, maybe that wasn't intuitive, but more entirely predictable. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• There is no canvassing, and the issue clearly isn't resolved. Cassianto, I would say it's best not to close any part of this thread, but to wait until people have stopped commenting. Otherwise we're going to be back here in another few days or weeks. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's canvassing because you only pinged admins who you thought would agree with you, when reports have been closed in my favor by admins who disagreed. RO^(talk) 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• As you wish Sarah, but maybe you could remind people to stick on topic and not to make this a gender and Eric based complaint. Cassianto^Talk 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record it looks as if Ched quit Wikipedia. [138]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? Cassianto^Talk 09:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

who cares? RO shouldn't have been blocked. We're better without people like Ched here. Bonus point for RO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.86 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

'No comments on editors' restriction

As per title - restrict RO to only commenting on edits related to article edits. No personal attacks, no commenting on COIs she thinks people have, basically no edits at all regarding other users. Otherwise RO is community banned. As per Blofelds succinct post above, RO has been quite incapable of consistently editing in a community spirited manner. RO has made many promises to change in the past but has not. So now change needs to be enforced or she needs to be shown the door. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Especially given Sarah's concern and the past history involved, I think a restriction of this nature could reasonable, although I'd think escalating blocks rather than going straight to a community ban would be more appropriate. Rapidly escalating blocks are normally fairly effective in deterring behavior, and a cban is less likely to result in a reformed editor, and more likely to result in an editor who is just gone. This whole thread amuses me a bit because I'm frequently accused of being heavy-handed in blocking, but 1/3/6 month etc escalating blocks will end up benefitting the encyclopedia far more than a cban would, while making it more likely RO ends up a productive editor who is still actually here. `Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well RO has been blocked repeatedly before, so while personally I feel escalating blocks are a waste of time, they should start at a month in this case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen multiple previous situations where escalating blocks end in an editor becoming a productive member of the community, and yeah, my initial suggestion was a month. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Bullying

I edit under my real name. RO emailed me a week or so ago and I replied using my usual Google account. I told him/her not to email me any more but to take it to Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy. In an attempt to bully me at Wikipediocracy, he/she went through my early contributions here and, jumping to some wrong conclusions, accused me of lying about who I am, and linked to my Google+ account, which he/she had found via my email address, which has some public information and a photo. Then I see him/her linking a collection of anonymously-uploaded images to the real name of the uploader in the conflict that kicked off this thread. Then I see him/her linking to harassment in an attempt to hurt Sarah because of a dispute at FA.

I'm as convinced as one can be, and my view is shared by many of those I most respect here, that this is a returning trouble maker. But I'm also quite convinced that if we permanently block this account, he/she will be back straight away with another. Right now we know, pretty well, what we're dealing with and, distasteful though some might find it, we can keep him/her here and control him/her up to a point, using time-limited blocks.

I've just woken up to find all this here, and have only scanned some of it. But there seem to be some sensible behaviour-modification proposals above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've been emailed by a significant number of people with stories not unlike yours. At this point I'm uncertain as to whether the restriction proposed above or a more severe sanction is appropriate, because both what you describe and enough of what other people have described crosses or comes close enough to WP:OUTING for me to potentially be comfortable with an outing block - but "I'm also quite convinced that if we permanently block this account, he/she will be back straight away with another" hits on a point I suspect is likely to be true as well. Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't object to the idea of potential sanction, I just found a sudden pretty much unexplained indef in the middle of an ANI thread inappropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Is there evidence that can be presented involving these kinds of things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Generally in a case approaching outing, evidence isn't presented on a public board unless the person/people effected feels comfortable presenting it publicly. Such incidents are normally handled by functionaries/arbcom or sysops directly involved. I haven't verified what Anthony has posted above, but will say that several other people have emailed me about RO that make me suspect his description is more or less accurate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Anthonyhcole, I wasn't accusing you of anything at WPO; I was being sarcastic to show that you used weak evidence in April when you analyzed my early diffs. The first diffs of this account do not point to socking, because I edited as an IP for several years and had a previous account that I declared to ArbCom in February. As far as outing, I filed a complaint in April, when another editor made several attempts to out my physical location: ([139]), which I've never shared onWiki. That complaint was summarily dismissed, giving the impression that what they did was fine by Wikipedia standards. This is one of the many problems with having multiple standards of behavior depending on how many people support you. RO^(talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know which subthread to put this one, so adding here. For all admins reading, I've just seen on WO that RO posted this about me "Godot entrapped me in the same way that Victoriaearle did last April, so I bet the same planners were involved with this set-up."

  FYI to everyone: I've been gone for RL reasons. To do with health. To do with the fact that in the past 10 days I've seen more of the inside of emergency rooms than I want. To do with facing surgery on Wednesday. While I'm sitting around waiting for that event, I dip in here, dip in there and find that I'm behind all of this?? Enough, I say.

  At any admin reading, (now that we all know about the health issues), I did try to put together a sandbox with diffs to show a timeline to someone else but deleted it when I got sick. Didn't get that far, but there is a timeline there. I give my persmission to reinstate if anyone wants to, sandbox is here. Admins, I assume, can read the deleted edits.

  PS: this behavior of RO's is meant for the maximum reaction and unfortunately it works. Victoria (tk) 18:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• PS pinging Kevin Gorman, Wehwalt, Ched, SlimVirgin, Drmies, and pinging Godot13 to confirm that there hasn't been off-wiki collusion. Victoria (tk) 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Pinging 28bytes too. Victoria (tk) 18:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I needed no collusion once I was aware of Godot13's complaints. He has enabled my work here tremendously by obtaining quality images that certainly could be available from no other source. I have been aware of RO's problems, but also I have seen most sensible comments from her. But the thought of her doing opposition research on an editor who could be driven off the wiki, and my work harmed, as has happened in the past, led me to comment as I did. I was made aware of the matter by email, but not by Godot13 or any of the people you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't intentionally doing opposition research; I was responding to a comment that suggested it was wrong to ask Godot what his profession was, which I didn't actually ask ([140]); I asked if he had been paid to create images, to which I responded that Godot had already revealed private info at his user page and included his name in summaries he submitted for the Wikicup. If I put my real name on a file I'm quite certain that it would be fair game to my detractors, and last April, when Montanabw tried to reveal my physical location onwiki, an An/I report I filed was dismissed as not a policy violation ([141]). Montanabw tried to connect my account with IPs, and she was not admonished for it. Somebody said Godot's profession was off-limits, and I merely pointed out that he had openly shared this info to Wikipedia, and he encouraged me to look at his talk page to see the info that he later said was private. Here's Godot offering more information than I asked for at the thread where I supposedly crossed a line by asking private questions ([142]). Again, I didn't even ask his profession, I only asked if he had been paid to create images. RO^(talk) 19:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As may be. I'm sorry I said anything to begin with. I leave the matter for the community's collective wisdom. If I'm needed about something else, I'll be dealing with weightier things. Like William Howard Taft.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Victoria, I've been so busy with other (less exciting) stuff that I barely skimmed the entire thread, though I know the editor pretty well of course. In fact, I don't think I am familiar with Godot at all or even with the actual complaint here, and I have not been involved in or invited to any kind of collusion--though I did receive, via email, a link to the Wikipediocracy thread (is that "WPO"?) in which Rationalobserver tries to condemn me for a whole bunch of things, to the delight of many of that site's usual customers. Some people there really hate me! In short, no, I really have nothing to do with any of this. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm really sick and shouldn't be doing this. I'm not asking for people to chime in re off-wiki communication, but rather to bring this y'all's attention. Apparently, while I'm sick, in the ER, etc., I've taken the time to plan this An/I thread. Huh? Is that even remotely reasonable to suggest? That's what I want admins to look at. I've not had interaction with RO for a number of months, have never interacted with Godot13, so was more than a little surprised to read that. The point I'm making, and clearly not making very well, is that this user's behavior bears looking at. Bowing out now. Victoria (tk) 19:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, if you're admitting to having planned an elaborate scheme like this while in hospital, then...congratulations, I suppose, cause I couldn't have pulled that off.

      Hey: "I've not had interaction with RO for a number of months, have never interacted with Godot13"--me too. Coincidence? Or, do you think the non-existence of our off-wiki collusion is proven false by the fact that we had nothing to do with any of this? I mean, we coordinated the fact that we had nothing to do with any of this?

      I'm also going to leave this thread alone, and will leave it to others. I know where I stand on the matter. All the best Victoria, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

This section has gone off-topic. SarahSV (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is too much offline evidence for the community to deal with this one properly. Arbitration seems the best, if not a perfect, answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Actually most of the offline info is freely available at the other place, however none of that is required to demonstrate RO's disruptive and combative nature - as shown in the on-wiki diffs provided in the original complaint above - most of which justify either a complete ban/block or rigourous restrictions. Can we stop sending everything to Arbcom when the community is perfectly capable of coming to a consensus. RO deserves a speedy response, not 2 months of limbo (such is Arbcom's recent performance) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I think maybe arbitration is called for also. Because there are mitigating circumstances here that should be taken into careful consideration, with some other people's feet being held to the fire also. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Frankly any arbitration involving you would end up with you pushing your gender-politics (as you have above) and yelling male bias! male bias!. So while I would indeed like to see the result of you attempting to derail an arbitration case into GGTF 2.0, there are no mitigating circumstances here, only RO's past and future behaviour needs to be considered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC) So, you are accusing me in advance of trying to derail the process? This is exactly how sexist intimidation works. Try to make a woman feel uncomfortable about her take on an issue by trying to paint her as a raving feminist and scare her back into submission. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Well if Only in death isn't, I certainly am. Again, this has nothing to do with gender, and more to do with RO's behaviour. CassiantoTalk 10:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Okay, so, I don't want to put words in your mouth Cassianto, so I'm confirming here. What you are saying, is that if this case was to go to arbitration, I would try to derail it? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I dont really need to 'accuse' you of anything. Its obvious from your attempts here that what you want is a soapbox. Feel free to open an arbcom request. Absolutely no one here will stop you. Its your right as an wikipedian. Unless you have something pertinant to RO's past behaviour that doesnt involve making comparisons to how other editors have been treated, I think this conversation has reached the maximum level of usefulness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Personally, I think it reached it's peak several posts ago, when you started taking the discussion from the merits of arbitration to your pre-assessment of my behavior in it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Can someone less involved in gender issues than I am please invoke any of the relevant sets of arb or discretionary sanctions to get Cassianto and OIDDE to knock it off so that a reasonable discussion about Rationalobserver's behavior can be held - which should pretty much be the purpose of this thread now that the questionable block has been removed for now? Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) See above. No longer interested in interacting with soapboxers. But it is interesting you only mention me and cassianto when its Lynn who started the derailing process above by bringing in unrelated issues. As it is, this will be my last post on anything except RO in the above section. Feel free to hat this entire bit if you wish. (Also repeatedly saying 'questionable' block does not make it so. RO's block has been lifted in order to participate here, it has not been removed, merely suspended for the duration.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Of course the block was questionable. It was 1)Put on in the middle of ANI involving the blocked person. 2)Made for an indefinite length of time, which is not done without consensus, 3)Done by an admin who had in the past participated in a frat-boy like discourse on the blocked person and 4)Placed by an admin who has continually defended a male editor with similar conduct issues. Hence, the initiation of the discussion of gender issues. No, they did not come out of nowhere to try to divert attention from ROs behavior. No, I am not a raging feminist who looks for sexism in every remark. On the other hand, I'm not a "Fucking Moron" as Cassianto so eloquently implied. I call them as I see them. And this time I saw gender bias in the way the block was dealt. Now that the block is lifted, yes lets focus on ROs behavior, and some of the mitigating circumstances surrounding it. Because if things had been handled correctly months ago, I don't think we would be here now. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'm taking no further part in this complete fucking pantomime. Especially now seeing as Gorman is trying to twist it around to make it look as if I am the one going off topic. CassiantoTalk 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) And, if I might point it out, I was not the only one who saw potential sexism in this whole affair. But I think I'm the only woman, and have to wonder if that is why Cassianto and OIDDE are restricting to me their rage that this has been brought up. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Again, you gender has nothing to do with this or any other thread linked to this subject. CassiantoTalk 23:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Holy smokers, don't take this to Arbcom. They've got enough on their hands with 4 or 5 cases in progress & Arbcom elections underway. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Well we just had a unilateral closing of the mentoring alternative. So, I guess ArbCom is the last option. Lynn (SLW) (talk)

Mentoring

Closing this section. Mentoring would not work. SarahSV (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems to me that, several months back a problem editor that I'm not positive of "his" (pretty sure he was-ahem-male though) identity but I think he has posted in this ANI, was offered the option of being mentored rather than banned. I think this might be a solution here also. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Oh good grief. By now RO is a completely capable editor in her own right and doesn't need somebody holding her hand. She doesn't need a mentor any more than myself or Drmies need one. I suppose I acted a bit like one for a while but RO knows exactly how to produce an FA quality article. The problem is that she can't control her behaviour at times which no mentor is going to stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) The problem is that she can't control her behaviour at times Says the guy who gets mad over edits and calls people twats ([143]), ([144]), ([145]) and grease monkeys ([146]), or references masturbation to taunt an editor. We all make mistakes, the only difference is that one group gets away with it and the other gets in trouble. I striked the comments and apologized, and it would have been dropped there for you. RO(talk) 21:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Mentoring is for editors inexperienced in wikipedia policies/guidelines etc in order to bring them up to speed. Not for people who are just refusing to abide by them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Sounds to me like the only action you're willing to consider is a total ban, right here and now. Mind if everyone else engages in tossing around other ideas? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC) See above section where I explicitly said a restriction on commenting on other users was an alternative. Editing restrictions (1rr etc) are pointless as the problem is not edit warring, interaction bans are useless unless you want to slap RO with interaction bans on EVERYONE. Short blocks in order to correct behaviour have tried and RO has shown no willingness to change their approach (or rather they have indicated willingness, then gone back to their old habits). Mentoring is a waste of time since RO (as has been indicated by a number of people above) knows perfectly well what they are doing is wrong. What are they going to mentor them in? 'Not being disruptive'? We would be back here within a month. Since the problem is entirely RO's personality and interactions with other users when commenting ON other users, the only real restriction that will work and allow RO to keep contributing is to prevent them from commenting on other users. Otherwise yes, a total ban is pretty much the only option for someone who is unwilling/unable to conform to wikipedia's basic policies regarding interactions with other editors. Feel free to toss that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Short blocks in order to correct behaviour have tried and RO has shown no willingness to change their approach No. That's not accurate. My first behavior block was 2 weeks, the second was 6 months, and now this one, the third, was indeff. Even my biggest detractor thought the length was wrong and should have been 72 hours: ([147]). So no, I have not had the opportunity to get shorter blocks for behavior. RO(talk) 18:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Mentorship would be best for RO, IMHO. PS: RO's gender is irrelevant to this discussion, so let's get away from that, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Institutional memory ain't what it used to be. Mentorship won't work and it's been tried informally by several members of the community already. The only thing that will work is a long block on RO and her enablers. You folks realize this has been going on for a year, right? When will it end? Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Question: RO, do you want to work with a mentor? If not, discussion of mentorship is probably pointless. I could see some value in your having some informal chats with experienced editors about workable expectations and conflict avoidance, if you're willing to do that. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) If the community thinks it would help I am certainly willing. I think mentorship is great, but the biggest issue has been learning bad habits by watching others get away with things I'm later criticized for, such as last April, when Montanabw tried numerous times to out my physical location ([148]), but I never saw anyone indicate that this was inappropriate. RO(talk) 20:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I don't consider mentoring to be a viable option here. RO has plenty of experience already and has basically been offered informal mentorship by several editors, to which she did not react very well. She does not seem to enjoy being subject to any kind of authority or admonition (which is not odd, of course). Everyone who has tried to work with her as an ally while also offering advice she has come to see and treat as an antagonist. I definitely would not offer myself as a mentor given my experience of interacting with RO. I think the only solution here is WP:ROPE and some clear guidelines for what is an isn't acceptable behavior in interaction with others - any further attempts at outing on or off wiki should be met with an indefinite block. The defense offered above is of course a non-defense, since only a mentally deficient person would conclude from watching someone get a way with murder that murder is an acceptable practice that they wish to engage in. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Your logic is flawed, as people don't have to be taught that murder is wrong, we know this intrinsically, but how was I supposed to know that outing is bad when Montanabw tried to out me and literally nobody batted an eye? Don't you remember the concerted efforts that were made to ascertain my previous account and real name even though I repeatedly said I won't link to it or reveal it for privacy reasons? RO(talk) 21:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Your argument is disingenuous since your attempt to out her was clearly done as a way of retaliating, not as an innocent mimicking of her behavior. In general I think you have shown yourself to be quite vindictive to anyone that you feel has slighted or humiliated you - which includes those who have offered you advice on how to improve your editing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'll repeat the question: don't you remember the concerted efforts that were made to ascertain my previous account and real name even though I repeatedly said I won't link to it or reveal it for privacy reasons? I was referring to this thread, which has to do with Godot. RO(talk) 21:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) If you dont understand the difference between linking a new account to potentially problematic previous accounts having been sanctioned for similar behavior and linking an editor to an offline identity in order to gin the upper hand in a friendly editing contest, then perhaps you are not actually fit to edit here at all. This thread does not have to do with Godot, it has to do with you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Maunus, look at the thread one more time ([149]). Montanabw was trying to link me to an IP, not an account. There's a big difference, and SPI clerks won't publicly connect accounts to IPS, because it reveals their physical location. Montanabw never made any connection to those IPs and an LTA; she only connected them to me. RO(talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Here we see the real problem on display. RO, after the Montanabw RfA, you apologized to her and said you would work to avoid conflict in the future. How long did your promise last? IIRC, it lasted less than a few weeks. You always promise to do something but then renege on that promise shortly thereafter. You shouldn't be allowed to edit here, it's that simple. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC) But why do you think I'm among the more problem editors when I was drama free for more than 5 months this year? RO(talk)! And I didn't receive my first block until almost three years after I started editing. Does that automatically make me an angel? Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) No, but that's not my point, which is that I've been sincerely trying, and someone who was only here to cause trouble wouldn't be trying at all. I'll bet lots of people would show their bad traits under the pressure I've been under. In April, you said Montanabw's accusations should end soon ([150]), but they continued well into last month. These are mitigating circumstances, and my behavior has been influenced by the 9 months of character assassination. Had I never been wrongly accused my time here would have been much, much different. You were my friend and mentor until I said I didn't want to work with my accuser. That was a bullshit reason to write me off, and I would have been so much better off had you not done that. RO(talk) 21:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Comment I think mentorship is a excellent idea, as I don't think RO's behaviour has been acceptable. The main obstacle being in finding someone suitable who is prepared to do so. (a) @Steven Crossin: (formerly Steven Zhang) and (b) @GoodDay: would both make for excellent candidates, IMHO. Pinging both to see if any response. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Please read this thread. Informal mentorship has been tried by many of the editors in this discussion. It has failed in every instance, with the same exact result: RO blames her mentor for her continuing problem. There is no good reason to try mentorship again and again. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) It's not blaming you to say I could have used your guidance after the closed SPI last February, when you refused to acknowledge me after I said I didn't want to work with Victoria. Yes. I have my issues, but I don't think I'm an exceptional example of a disruptive user. I'm a productive content creator who is imperfect, but willing to try harder. RO(talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Refusing to work with Victoria was your final exam, which you failed. How can you contribute to Wikipedia if you can't work with people, especially those you disagree with? Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) But my refusal came just minutes after the bogus SPI Victoria filed on me was closed. I felt abused and harassed by her, totally unprovoked, and I just wanted some space. That was not a valid reason to throw away our friendship. That was the only time I disagreed with you. One fricking time! I wish you'd have given me a second chance, but if total submission was what you required you were never a friend anyway. I'm a person, not a bot. RO(talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I just visited User talk:Victoriaearle. I didn't see any "get well soon" messages from you. According to this discussion, she's in the hospital, and here you are, still obsessed with the perceived slights and wrongs others did to you. I keep forgetting, is this Rationalobsererpedia or Wikipedia? If it's the latter, then you know about guidelines for getting along with editors, even difficult ones. You also know that your problem isn't confined to Victoria, there's a whole list of people in this thread who you can't seem to get along with at all. The way I see it, you have a choice. Go apologize to all of the editors listed above and tell them on their talk page how sorry you are for your past behavior and how excited you are to start fresh and work with them in the future. You won't do that? Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Viriditas, of course I'm not going to edit Victoria's talk page until she unbans me from commenting there. The last time I went there to try to patch things up I got a six-month block. I'd be happy to apologize to anyone you think deserves it. I apologized to Godot the day before he opened this thread. RO(talk) 23:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC) If this followed by this constitutes an apology than RO has even less insight that I thought...--Godot13 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I think this should go to arb com, where these things can be hashed out in a calmer environment. Viriditas, it's not necessary to back RO into a corner like this. God, I feel like I'm watching Stanley Kowalski go after Blanche DuBois. RO deserves some apologies also. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC) You're an enabler, Lynn. In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. You get what you give. If RO expects apologies, she needs to start making them. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Sticks and Stones Viriditas. I've been through far worse than you. Bring it on. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) If RO expects apologies, she needs to start making them. : Viriditas, I redacted the offending comments ([151]), dropped the subject ([152]), and apologized to Godot 18 hours before he filed this An/I ([153]). RO(talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I asked you to do one simple thing, apologize in the thread itself, which you did not do. Please stop minimizing your role.--Godot13 (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I did apologize in the thread, twice: ([154]) and ([155]). RO(talk) 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I would defer to Steve Crossin, who was my mentor in 2012/13. He'd be perfect for the role :) GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) @GoodDay well I think you'd be good yourself, but I can understand if you don't want to take it on. @Viriditas: you're wrong. I'm proposing formal mentorship, which has not been tried. This is a completely different animal to friendly advice and criticism, as it entails specific agreements between mentor and mentoree. Why try to obstruct something which might help? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'd agree to a mentorship with GoodDay. RO(talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'll assume the role, but only if everyone in this discussion will agree to go the mentorship route & then with myself as mentor. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Not a chance as per all the objections to mentoring above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Break

• Much of what I read here boils down to "not my fault". Drmies (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I redacted the offending comments ([156]), dropped the subject ([157]), and apologized to Godot 18 hours before he filed this An/I ([158]). RO^(talk) 23:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I feel like I'm following RO around everywhere she claims she apologized. But I asked her to apologize in the thread (didn't happen), initial apology included jabs [159]. This is a lot of justification, rationalization, minimization. This is not an issue with editing style, it is a personality issue. Good luck mentoring that...--Godot13 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I did apologize in the thread, twice: ([160]) and ([161]). Those aren't jabs; they are explanations of why I thought you were being cagy and hyperbolic. RO^(talk) 23:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• RO, you're saying that nothing is your fault. Either it didn't happen at all, or it happened only because you were under stress because of someone else. In the meantime, the community's patience is being exhausted. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• It is my fault, Sarah, because I made assumptions onWiki that I shouldn't have per AGF. I am truly sorry I implied Godot makes money from images of currency. That was obviously wrong of me, and I won't do it ever again. I apologize better than most here, and I'll freely do it again. Sorry, Godot. I shouldn't have assumed you are professionally involved in the production of images you submit to the Wikicup. RO^(talk) 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not talking only about Godot. And even here you've missed the point about introducing real names. The larger issue is blaming others for your behaviour, and searching for soft spots to use as weapons, sometimes just because someone disagrees with you. As Dr Blofeld said, people are starting to feel it's dangerous, not just irritating. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) Well (RO), either your reality testing or mine doesn't work, because the two links you provided do not suggest any kind of unconditional apology (or really any apology at all). Perhaps this kind of misperception of your words/actions is what leads to these problems?--Godot13 (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• If you want an unconditional apology then I sincerely apologize for assuming you had a professional connection to these images. That was wrong of me, and I hope you can accept my apologies. My communication is often misunderstood. That's my fault too. RO^(talk) 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I am so disgusted. You know, I was a victim of the whole "RO is a sock" fiasco. I got dragged through all kinds of crap on the flimsiest of evidence, and no one here did.one.God.damn.thing about it. Just let it happen or even enabled it. And now It's deja vu all over again. Try to come to some kind of resolution that doesn't make someone a victim again, and what happens? Threads get summarily and unilaterally closed while discussion is still ongoing, and not one admin is stepping up to try to calm the crisis. I feel like I walked into the pages of Lord of the Flies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnWysong (talk • contribs)

RO is not a victim. They are the cause of victims. See diffs above RE their abuse of others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a very simplistic idea of what being a victim is. Most makers of victims are also victims themselves - the two are not distinct categories but significantly overlapping. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Maunus for pointing out this important, correct fact that seems so frequently to be overlooked. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a bit too abstract for this discussion. To be clearer, onwiki (and off) RO has victimised others and any negative actions they have received in turn have been as a forseeable consequence of their own behaviour, and not through unwarranted abuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that if you look at the actual history of events RO first experienced antagonism and the feeling of being victimized when other editors accused her of being a sockpuppet. This experience seems to have marked most of her subsequent interactions with others. Now, certainly this does not excuse her subsequent behavior or mean that she should not take responsibility for it, but it does mean that it is unhelpful to operate with categories of innocent victims and guilty perpetrators who must repent and apologize. Lots of people participated in making this giant clusterfuck, and took turn vicitimizing and being victimized by each other.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, in fact the targeting of editors preceded the sockpuppetry suspicions. From RO's earliest edits, they targeted Dan56. This prompted the suspicion [162] that RO was GabeMc and the Jazzerino accounts (see SPI), because Gabe had had a long feud with Dan. The habit of targeting people has existed as long as the account has, which is why it would be good to resolve it. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well she clearly was a returning user, and people were trying to figure out who her previous incarnations had been almost from day one. Not always in a collegial or friendly way. I really think nothing is gained by painting her as the only person with a problem here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah, I just noted how after 1 month of registering BlackKite gave her a warning for making personal attacks against Eric Corbett whom she had called "misogynist" without providing sufficient evidence. That is actually hilarious.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Only in death, please point out a single policy we have that suggests that abusing other editors is justified based on the fact that they may have committed misconduct themselves. That's not a sort of thinking that belong on this project. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well indeed, which is why I didn't say that at all, as is obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of English. Perhaps you are confusing me with maunus as I have made it perfectly clear RO's behaviour has no excuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote Only in death: "any negative actions they [RO] have received in turn have been as a forseeable consequence of their own behaviour, and not through unwarranted abuse".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well yes? Being blocked for deliberately being disruptive when you have been blocked before for doing the same thing is a forseeable consequence of being disruptive. As opposed to Lynn (and KG's to a lesser extent) attempts to excuse RO's behaviour as some sort of reaction to how they have been treated by others. Not sure how KG interprets that as saying the complete opposite but glad I could clarify it for you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• RO, it seems to me that you're protesting inequitable treatment a lot (maybe justifiably but that's besides the point). Have you looked at NE Ent's essay WP:TANJ? Do you think you can take its advice on board? As a long term IP editor subject to "racial profiling" as such, I can say that equal treatment isn't even an aspirational goal of Wikipedia as much as some editors might like to wish it was. So expecting or asking for it tends to lead to disappointment. Best thing is privately figure out (using your own criteria) who you think the best low-drama editors on Wikipedia are, and try to edit the way they do. Looking at the actions of drama-prone editors to find acceptable boundaries to lower yourself to isn't a good practice. I also suggest quitting editing temporarily if the place gets too annoying. I do that frequently myself. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Restriction on insulting or commenting on the identity, character or motives of other editors

User:Only in death proposed something along these lines, above. Perhaps allow an appeal, back here, after eighteen months. If someone is being mean to RO, she is entitled to all the usual forms of recourse (drawing the problem to the attention of an admin, bringing it here or ArbCom, etc.). Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose nothing short of RO contacting everyone she has harmed and apologizing to them. Otherwise, indef. I'm especially disappointed in the enablers and the gullible admins and editors who seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the Keyser Söze routine. This discussion gives a deeper insight into the bumbling, Keystone cop behavior exemplified by the crushing bureaucracy that forces decent people to stand up and fight against it. This is why I don't trust anyone in authority here. They are incapable of thinking outside the box and stepping back to see the big picture. The trail of victims left in RO's wake cannot be ignored by any rational observer. Gorman's continual cluelessness in the face of good evidence is troubling and has deep consequences if he's elected to arbcom. We need to start weeding the yes men and asslickers out of normal discussions. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What good would either blanket apologies or an indef do? That's a serious question and I'd appreciate an answer. The question is coming from someone who sees (a) a serious personality problem including sheer absence of insight and (b) someone who's been through this multiple times. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Read and understand restorative justice. There's too many edit conflicts to say more. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, forced apologies do jackshit, and you're well aware of that. As someone who has been active in groups committed to the principles of restorative justice, lived in communities governed by them, and TA'ed classes about restorative justice at a prominent American university, I honestly hope your link is a joke - especially when you include it immediately after accusing me of being continually clueless and strongly implying I am a yes man and/or asslicker. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing was said about forced apologies, and I'm on record saying they don't work. There's that cluelessness, and that ego, how did you manage to carry that thing in here? Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

...And on record about three posts above as suggesting RO either apologize to everyone or be indeffed - which, in this context, is absolutely a forced apology. As rarely as I ask for someone to be sanctioned for attacking me, I'm coming pretty damn close to asking an uninvolved admin to sanction you for the totality of your attakcs in this thread. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for offending you. Wait, was that forced because you threatened me? What a conundrum. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldnt aim for justice, cause that will never be achieved. We should aim for solving the problem, preferably with the least amount of injustice and distraction from the mission of building an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There it is, right on cue, the predictable, know nothing literalism that infects his place like the plague. Of course, if you had read the linked article like I asked, you would have immediately realized that the concept of "justice" discussed in that article is not the same concept of justice we say can't be achieved on Wikipedia. This is the kind of know nothing-ism I have come to expect. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that is a beautiful defense of civility and "restorative justice". If you wanted to understand my point instead of stroking your own ego, then you will see that my point is that forcing RO to go through the rounds of apologizing and making things better while letting the people who she feels have victimized her be the victims does not achieve any kind of justice OR restoration. This is not a case where there is one victimizer who has to be resocialized and a bunch of innocent victims who need to have their faith in justice restored.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that is bordering on word salad, right? Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, fuck you too.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose People shouldn't be insulting people anyways. A restriction on that seems pointless. If there's an issue of WP:CIR regarding an inability to avoid a grudge and overall inability to act civilly, it shouldn't be everyone's job to tie-toe around to avoid antagonizing those kinds of people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose that "restriction" is basic policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yes. But we rarely police it. Just look at this very thread. This is putting RO on notice that we will police it in his/her case, and offering guidance to admins. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to be pragmatic here, and reduce the disruption. A stie ban won't do that, it'll just precipitate another name (and probably gender) change. Apoligies all round would be utterly hollow - there's no insight here, and those who actually deserve an apology already know the value of RO's apologies. This restriction, policed with significant (weeks) time-limited blocks is the only thing I can see possibly working. Sorry for being so blunt. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not pragmatic at all, that's insanity--doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. The blocks have never worked in the past, yet they are supposed to magically start working now? Heartfelt apologies are worth pursuing, but because if deviates with your conception of justice we can't be allowed to try? Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is, it spells out, in very simple terms, what we will not tolerate, making it very clear to RO and watching admins what's expected. What's your solution? Oh, right. Forced apologies or a site ban. I've addressed that, above. I have seen many, many "heartfelt" apologies from this user. Perhaps a dozen in the last eighteen months. They. Are. Hollow. And. Utterly. Worthless. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Again with the forced apologies? I'm not in favor of those. All swans aren't white and all apologies aren't forced. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

How are you going to elicit a spontaneous, heartfelt apology from this person? How will you distinguish the heartfelt from the shallow, meaningless but plausible apology? How have the multiple other spontaneous heartfelt apologies RO has scattered about this project over the last eighteen months improved things? I think RO has actually offered an apparently heartfelt apology, without being asked, in the majority of the disputes I've looked at, and then gone on to further insult or impugn the recipient shortly afterwards. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Especially when some of those people she has harmed owe her just as she owes them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. First, the editor in question has to be willing to go through the apology process. Then, and this is important, the victim has to be willing to listen. Finally, the editor and the victim get to engage in the apology process together until the problem is resolved to their satisfaction and they can put the past behind them. This isn't a "I apologize, are we good?" scenario. I'm proposing a way for wayward editors to make good on their apology by engaging the victim and for the victims to be a part of the process and help restore harmony to the community. There's nothing retributive here, which is why it conflicts with the current model and upsets people. This goes beyond the concept of punishment and dispenses with it altogether, restoring the individual to their rightful place in Wikipedia. No more blocks, no more bans as a first recourse. This is the ultimate editor retention tool. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Show us how it's done. Apologize to me for the Queen Bee crack earlier in the thread. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Closure

As an editor who has served a 1-year siteban (2013-14), I know what it's like to be shut away. It's what has made me become a member of WP:RETENTION. As I would for Eric Corbett, I do so now for Rationalobserver. I'm asking all involved in this discussion, to allow RO another chance (be it with a mentorship or whatever) & hold off from an indef-block or a trip to Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Can some admin shut this down already? We are going from off-topic discussion now to attacks on editors revolving around the theory of justice, enough is enough... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid, please note the date and time of this diff:[163]. Yet you are here? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are going off topic again, the point is that this thread should be closed how much more blood do you want to squeeze out of this turnip? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

From the linked diff, and I quote: "User:Knowledgekid87 agrees to work much harder at avoiding other people's drama." Further, I came to your talk page to ask you to stop per the conditions of your topic ban. Is your mentor available? Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Im not topic banned anymore, I am simply asking for closure here as I do not see this thread going anywhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone smashed the conch hours ago. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

The discussion has become unhelpful, so how do we resolve it? I suggest that RO be topic-banned for six months from project space and user space (except their own). They would be asked to edit only articles and article talk, and to comment on content rather than editors' behaviour. That would include refraining from discussing editors off-wiki. Breaches would lead to escalating blocks. An exception would be made to allow RO to comment if other people begin dispute resolution about RO.

It might also be helpful if uninvolved admins/CUs would examine the sockpuppetry suspicions (offwiki) so they can be acted on or put to rest.

• Support. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as the alternative would likely be an indef block or trip to Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support because I respect SV's judgment, not because I prefer this solution. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Should we specify a time before RO can ask that these restrictions be dropped? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Anthony, the suggestion is for a six-month topic ban. That isn't too long, so I'd say there's no need to allow it to be appealed. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry. I overlooked the six months, somehow. Yep. That seems reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• SV, it occurs to me that one could circumvent the user space restriction by engaging in ping and email abuse. How would that be dealt with? RO is already notorious for abusing the email feature. Would you be willing to be more explicit about the terms, such as adding no gratuitous or unsolicited email or ping notifications? Can those with advanced rights disable echo and email for her account during the ban? Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Email is covered by "That would include refraining from discussing editors off-wiki." So it someone were to report that they'd received an email from RO discussing someone else, email access could be removed. Pinging others to discuss people would be gaming, but I think we could deal with it as it arises. This sanction relies to some extent on RO acting in good faith and not seeking ways around it. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Unfortunately, there is additional complexity to consider. For example, if she nominates an article for GA, the bot will edit project space and add her sig, in effect violating the proposed proscription. More importantly, she wouldn't be able to nominate her work at FAC or comment in that namespace. Would it be acceptable for others to nominate and discuss her work in project space, or would this be a proxy violation? And need I mention ye olde transclusion trick, which could effectively violate all of the above restrictions. I didn't intend to go into beans territory, but it's important to spell these things out. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support--I mean, sure, if we're being generous. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support As substantially similar to my proposal above. Viriditas, I wouldn't worry about it too much, everyone here knows what gaming the system looks like. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support The issues are obscured with over 100K characters above and much more in other places, and a no-drama topic ban is a reasonable outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as written, because it causes problems but Support the general idea of some sort of sanction. RationalObserver does a lot of good work for the project but it comes with an unfortunate side order of drama and mud-slinging. As Viriditas suggested, RO would use the project space for peer and FA reviews, and may also wish to have a say in AfDs, so a straight ban is impractical. Is it possible to put a community-enforced "probation" restriction, that I've seen mentioned at ArbCom before ie: "RO is on probation for 6 months. During this time, she may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for good cause on any discussion she disrupts". I've banged heads with RO myself so I don't plan on enforcing restrictions, but other admins might? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Until a little more investigation is done here. I want to know if someone emailed Godot13 during the time that RO was interacting with him encouraging him to initiate all of this. I know there's someone lurking in the background, emailing people and stirring up shit. I don't like way the any of this smelled. Godot encouraging questions, then suddenly became determined to file an ANI, an indeff block right off the bat, admins running off in huffs, certain cronies swaggering in, swearing and posturing, etc. If someone has issues with RO, they should have the intestinal fortitude to deal with it forthright, instead of playing nasty little games. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding, "I know there's someone lurking in the background, emailing people and stirring up shit." How? "Know" implies a very high level of confidence. How do you come by this certainty? I read the thread on Wikipediocracy a few hours ago, and then there was nothing but speculation built on very tenuous hints. Has something changed? How do you know?

The Godot thread on the Wikicup page seemed pretty straightforward to me. RO insinuated Godot hadn't done enough work to justify his winning the cup and was unethical, and linked some anonymous pictures to Godot's real name and Godot hit the roof. Which struck me as a natural, understandable reaction. (And no, no one's emailed me about any of this except RO, and I told her fairly early on not to email me again.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Some other people in this thread have mentioned "getting emails" 2. I've been around this block a few times. I'm the one that got an indefinite block on the flimsiest of evidence for being a sock of ItsLassieTime by an admin that was shortly thereafter desyssoped. The whole thing was instigated by an editor who convinced the admin by off-wiki communication to just block me. No ANI, no SPI, and I even was blocked from my talk page access. So, I know that people get railroaded due to editors trying to circumvent the process. If we're going to hold RO's feet to the fire for emailing others to talk about other editors, it should not be tolerated by others either. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, you keep repeating the mantra that I linked Godot to private images, but that's not at all what happened. That is how he portrayed this, but the image I linked to was a Wikicup submission that he claimed as his own and put his real name on it long with his username. Here's the submission page ([164]) and here's the file I linked to File:HUN-2015-Budapest-Hungarian Parliament (Budapest) 2015-01.jpg, which has his name and username. I didn't link to any private information. You've repeated more inaccurate stuff about me than I ever assumed about Godot. RO^(talk) 16:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as impractical but Support mentoring. The above section discussing mentoring has been hatted as "Mentoring would not work." by SlimVirgin, yet this is exactly the type of restriction that would be offered through mentoring, but with none of the flexibility. As Ritchie333 describes above it would be impractical, and is poorly though out. For example, if one of RO's articles were at AfD should would be unable to defend it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"The above section discussing mentoring has been hatted as 'Mentoring would not work.'" Which was completely uncalled for. RO said she would welcome mentoring, and it seems to me like it was the badgering she received that led to the conclusion it would not work. Hell, who's at their best when being backed into a corner? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose but Support mentoring I have noticed that drama gets started when one editor does something wrong, and other editors rush into the fray that have had problems with said editor before. Im convinced that it isn't one editor here creating all the mess. I wish Wikipedia worked in a way that a handful of uninvolved editors looks at what went wrong with the diff's provided and make the call from there but sadly things don't pan out like that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – insufficient as it's still just part of a wash, rinse, repeat scenario; Ched made a good call. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support The terms described here seem to be a reasonable alternative to broader actions like blocking. If this fails to gain support then the original block seems like the best path. HighInBC 16:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Anon 109.67.134.193

Resolved

109.67.134.193 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added unsourced or poorly sourced information to Schnitzel. After getting several warnings, he/she made personal attacks, edit warred on two articles, and now has gone on a rampage of reverting all of my edits on numerous unrelated articles with no explanation. The rampage continues as I write this (18 articles so far). His/her edit history is short so far, so all of this can easily be verified. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And so talk page access was revoked for the abusive edits. No opinion about the Schnitzel. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on Jonas Vinther

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

---

Several editors have supported a topic ban above, without the terms of this being explicitly defined. In light of the concerns raised there and in the earlier thread, I would suggest that User:Jonas Vinther be topic banned from all articles concerning Nazi Germany, broadly construed. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support lol Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 01:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Editors who come here with an agenda are eventually banished, and it's time for the proud Fascist to go somewhere else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per my comments in the thread above this. BMK (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Jonas Vinther: This is a serious matter. Your !vote above can be read as either an understanding on your part that your editing has been outside the accepted policies of Wikipedia, or it could just be a joke. If it is a joke on your part, please strike it, because if you are serious, there is no need for the community to continue !voting. If you accept the topic ban, than any admin can, right now, impose that topic ban on you, as you have agreed to it. If you think this entire incident is a joke, you are mistaken.
  • Okay, striked it. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 01:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• comment I took a look at one of Jonas' articles, Horst Wessel (well known posterboy for National Socialism since his death in 1929), and at the main source used (Siemens 2013). The content of the article did not correspond well to that of the book used to source it. I started a section describing the problems of selective representation I found in the article Talk:Horst_Wessel#PoV_Problems.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I really don't understand why we need two articles, Horst Wessel and Horst Wessel Song, as Wessel is really not significant in his own right, only as the Nazi martyr Goebbels made out of him. I suggest that they be merged, and that much os the material should come from Horst Wessel Song, an article I had a part in writing (primarily the "History" sectio), and which I sourced from the works of reliable historians. BMK (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that there are several biographies of Wessel suggests that we do need both articles. Siemens' biography which is critical and describes the way his legacy was used for propaganda is very good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, but I won't press the issue. In any event, both articles need to be neutral and well-sourced. BMK (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• 'Comment A couple of other editors have also found neutrality problems in other of Jonas' work. [the FA review of] of his article on Walther von Brauchitsch Auntieruth55 considered the article to be written as an "apologia". In the [review] of the same article Halibutt asked why Jonas relied on a book from 1944 instead of a book from 2001. Jonas answered that "I decided to use Hart instead precisely because it was written in 1944, where the existence of the Holocaust was not yet known, which make Harts bio on Brauchitsch more neutral (in my opinion)."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Hitler/Nazi/WW2 topics, broadly construed. A pro-fascist, pro-Nazi editor (who supports the extreme fringe of what all normal human beings consider to be one of the worst examples of debased inhumanity to fellow human beings) should be marginalized, and this is one area that needs protection from their influence. We'd do the same to a known pedophile editor, and this is on just about the same level. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for a second time per the above. The fact that Jonas thinks this is a big joke tells me he isn't tall enough to ride Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support The userboxes in May really were the truth. Disappointed in myself that I did not take them at face value. Irondome (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think it's too much to ask. Poeticbent talk 01:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Irondome and Viriditas. Jusdafax 08:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Baseball Bugs, Irondome. David J Johnson (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Whilst I can't bring myself to oppose, I am slightly uncomfortable with this. Having read the previous thread and looked at the diffs, it's not entirely obvious to me that his (abhorent) personal views on Nazism have found their way into his editing to any material extent. The issues around the creation of the article on "Anti-Hitler propaganda" seem to me to come closest, but even then are not open-and-shut. I acknowledge that a skilled manipulator can be pretty subtle in introducing POV over time - although from his posts here there seems little that is skilled or subtle about him. Maybe I'm AGFing too much. But I am uncomfortable with the concept of sanctioning someone because they hold repellant RL views either without it being clear how that has resulted in breaching NPOV in actuality to a material degree or on the basis that someone like that simply shouldn't be allowed to edit in that topic area. But I seem to be on my own with that response. DeCausa (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

He's obsessed and unable to truly write and edit with a NPOV. His work will have to be further scrutinized, and in the meantime a long break will be good for him, and the community. If he indicates he sees there is a problem, unlike his initial response on this page, and if an appeal is made, he can regain his abilities to edit on the topic. But for now, he's toast. Want more? Take a look at his first 500 edits. That, and the particular support of two very different editors whom I respect, not to mention numerous others, make this a no-brainer, in my view. Jusdafax 11:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jusdafax's comments above. My only further comment is that unless action is taken now, and based on past experience, he will lay low for a few days and then return with his obsessive "edits". David J Johnson (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above was nothing but a show trial. The people who actively commented already held a great dislike towards me so everything said about me should be read with caution. As demonstrated by "Baseball Bugs", this has turned into pure WP:WITCHHUNT. I find it unbelievable that the administrators' noticeboard can issue things like topic bans with an unfair community consensus and not a shred of evidence that I'm "obsessed and unable to truly write and edit with a NPOV". You say look at my first 500 edits? This, for instance, was the first major edit I ever made to an article. Where is the NPOV violations? Don't comment something just because your friends does or because you hold a grudge against me, and don't make false accusations without proof in diffs. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's funny to hear a Fascist complaining about being mistreated. In a Fascist state, if you complained you would be shot at sunrise. Or sooner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is really disturbing and counter to the principles of an encyclopaedia to have an openly fascist and pro-Nazi editor at all. Fascism is a bitter enemy of knowledge and free-thought. AusLondonder (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

He also can't spell "prize" correctly, so competence might also be an issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So now this is about my English not being sufficient enough? Stay on topic, Baseball Bugs, and stop WP:WITCHHUNTING. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Fascists are famous for witchhunting. Are you calling me a Fascist now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of a fascist pleading victim status. AusLondonder (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Realistically, an alleged "expert" on WWII griping about "bias", against one of the worst mass-murderers in human history, is not competent to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I had a random look at a few of his latest article edits and nothing jumped out at me. I haven't looked at the first 500, but is that a good test of any editors current compliance with policy? What bothers me is the lack of, say, 4 or 5 diffs demonstrating what you say in your first sentence. Is AusLondkner's post what is really going on here: we shouldn't have someone here who has those views? DeCausa (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to second DeCausa's caution here. If you want to ask the community to topic ban an editor, it is incumbent upon you to justify this action to the community through diffs, not an opportunity for you to vent your personal feelings about an editor. So far I see maybe two real attempts at justifications here, plus a lot of complaining that should be discounted by the closer (and will be discounted by me if I am the one who closes this discussion). Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Having commented here, it would be improper of you to close the discussion, as your comment was made as an editor and not in your status as an admin. That makes you WP:Involved. Please consider this carefully. BMK (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking for diffs - standard practice in any situation like this - is not involvement. Attempting to steer discussions in a policy-compliant direction as a neutral party is not involvement. What is involvement is a bunch of editors who have crossed paths with this editor demanding he be banned. This isn't going to happen unless you provide the evidence for neutral, uninvolved parties to evaluate, regardless of who closes this discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Abstain until further evidence is provided, as per DeCausa and Gamaliel. As noted above, this is dead serious, and a seriously strong body of evidence needs to be presented to make the case. Until then, the needless antagonizing and needling is not going to help except to provide fodder for blocks for incivility. GAB^Hello! 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Support warning, as per Maunas. GAB^Hello! 02:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban but 'Support warning I think there clearly is a bias in the way that Jonas Vinther has covered some aspects of the topic. I do not however think that it is a conscious or malicious bias, but rather an unconscious bias based on selecting the kind of information that he himself found to be interesting or important and ignoring information he found disturbing. I think that there are signs that he has worked actively to counter his own biases in many instances working explicitly at achieving objectivity. He has also been able to work well with other editors which seems to me to have reduced problems in articles where many experts have been involved. I think he is capable, with oversight and training, to produce valuable content for the encyclopedia. I think the right thing to do here is give a stern warning to Jonas Vinther that he needs to concentrate and focus on objectivity and neutrality - which includes making oneself include the views with which one does not agree. He should also learn to handle disputes about neutrality better. We are lucky that articles on WW2 are among the best curated on wikipedia with a large corps of competent editors who can oversight and maintain the articles that Jonas also likes to work on. This I think will keep this from developing into a largescale bias problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Maunus: You don't think that this shows deliberate bias on the part of Jonas Vinther?

  ==Why I have decided to leave Wikipedia==

  Having edited this encyclopedia for almost one year, seven months and thirteen days now, and made over 18,900 contributions, I have come to realize Wikipedia is extremely anti-fascist and pro-democratic. I refuse to further help build up a site that both directly and indirectly glorifies leaders like Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. History is unchangeable and should always be presented non-neutral and accurately, even if that's not what "Uncle Joe" wants. I'm only interested in truth, not verifiability, and this set of mind contradicts Wikipedia and so I do what the community will expect of me. I can find better ways to put my genius to work which clearly isn't recognized here.

  I think that very clearly shows the frame of mind he edits in, and that he's looking to deliberately skew Wikipedia by downplaying, as much as possible, anything negative about Nazi Germany and Fascism. "I'm only interested in truth, not verifiability" is directly opposed to WP:Verifiability, one of out core principles, and the statement shows quite clearly that he is simply here to WP:Right great wrongs.
  We could, with complete justification, be !voting to indef block him, but we're not, we're simply saying that he doesn't have the capacity to edit about those topics he holds extreme opinions about, so a topic ban is necessary to prevent the damage to the encyclopedia's neutrality he represents. BMK (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not article space. Jonas clearly believes that he is free to express his views without repercussions in user space, but realizes that he can't do that in article space. I have not seen direct evidence of deliberate bias in the articles I have looked at - WP:AGF does not allow me to jump frm evidence of bias (which we have) to conclusions of deliberate malice. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you. We see over and over again that editors who hold extreme points of view and aren't shy about expressing them are unable to control them when editing, and, as you yourself point out below, the skewing that occurs with longterm POV editing is subtle and difficult to see when it happens, or fix afterwards. BMK (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the general point here and in the past I have argued for editors to be topicbanned for similar behavior, except that in those cases it was in my opinion more egregious (with more warnings, more content affected, in a more egregious manner) and in areas where the bias was more likely to have a substantial impact on our overall coverage of the topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But then what I don't understand is why one of the editors wanting to have him topic banned simply say: here are 5 diffs of him adding fascist POV into articles. What he says or thinks is one think; what he does to ouf articles is another, isn't it? DeCausa (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Because that is not the way that longtime pov skewing works. It is generally about selection of sources and selection within sources and it takes a huge research work and lots of writing to demonstrate. It cannot be simply shown with a couple of difs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Maunus is correct, it's not a matter of putting in "Hitler was the greatest leader in the history of Germany!", that would be easy, it's a matter of selecting the least objectionable interpretation of an event (from his POV) and putting that in, generally with a source which the edit actually misrepresents, but which superficially might seem to support it -- and how many sourced edits are actually checked against the reference? BMK (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely one could start with a couple of diffs? If you can't make a complete case, attempt a partial one. We don't vote editors off the island, we evaluate evidence and policy. Gamaliel (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You could start by looking at the talkpage of Horst Wessel, writing out this critique required me to spend about 4 hours reading the source and comparing it to the article written by Jonas to show the way in which it was biased.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's what Maunus wrote on Talk:Horst Wessel#PoV Problems:

The book largely builds on Siemens 2013, in which I have just had a chance to look at the three biographical chapters. Reading that source it becomes clear that the article here excludes all material that could be considered unflattering to Wessel, and in fact ends up coming dangerously close to the Nazi propaganda myth of Horst Wessel that Siemens critiques and exposes at length. Here is a bullet point list pointing out some of the aspects of Siemens' account that are being excluded:

• Wessel's participation in and glorification of violence against political opponents. By excluding the fact that Wessel participated and contributed to creating a climate of rampant political violence, his assassination comes to stand out as unmotivated. Siemens writes that "Wessel zealously contributed to this climate of violence until he himself became its victim..." (p. 75), and that "In reality, the Friedrichshain SA unit under Horst Wessel had the reputation of being a band of thugs, a brutal raiding squad." (p. 73) Page 68 describes how Wessel would organize trips for his troop through working class neighborhoods to provoke attacks on them that they could then retaliate. The article currently describes him as more of a social organizer when in fact what he organized was a militia, receiving military training and participating in para-military activity against political opponents. Page 54 gives a quote of Wessel's group participating in bating up police officers, and shooting another.
• Wessel's weak constitution and apparent reluctance or inability to participate personally in the violence of his SA group - Siemens' describes Wessel as not strong fighter, but primarily one who used words to create the image of being a warrior and strongman. Siemens attributes this to Wessel's weak physique. (p. 54-56)
• Wessel's early and constant dedication to violent antisemitism. (pp. 42-46)
• The second Horst Wessel trial of 1934 in which three persons (Peter Stoll, Sally Epstein, Hans Ziegler) were innocently sentenced and two of them executed is not mentioned. Their sentences were rescinded only in 2009.
• Wessel's continued use as a propaganda posterboy for National Socialism in contemporary times. (the books part III)

All of this would have to be addressed for the article to be considered neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Maunus' comments illustrate the difficulty here. You have to actually know the history or have the sources in hand to see how they've been misused and abused. It's rare that one can take a single edit and say "See? Bias!". Also, those comments pertain to the entire article, which was contributed to by other editors, so teasing out Vinther's part in creating the bias is far from an easy task, even though, with 124 out of 593 edits he's by far the biggest contributor (I'm next with 22, and Kierzek with 13). BMK (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a quick look at some of Jonas Vinther's editing:

• His very first article edit was to create an article about a ceremony in which Hitler promoted 12 Generals to Field Marshalls. There is no historical value in the incident, and, since the article was unsourced, it was soon redirected to 19 July -- ah, but the article still exists, because Vinther recreated it in the form of 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony. The event was still of no historical importance, but since Nazi Germany is possibly the most written about period in contemporary European history, there are sources galore which mention it, so, thanks to massive editing by Vinther, what is essentially a minor footnote in history is a full article with 33 notes and 27 listed sources.

• Here, using a TV documentary as a source, he makes an edit to The Holocaust in which he acquits the German Army of all knowledge and responsibility for it - this despite the overwhelming evidence that many of the Army's commanders were well aware of the mass shootings that were being performed by the Einsatzgruppen in the areas behind the lines, but under military control. There are documented instances of Army commanders complaining, in person and on paper, about the scope of the executions; one even said to an SS leader "The Fuhrer can hardly intend us to shoot all the Jews!" This use of a single TV documentary and the statements of two German Army officers -- who most probably are telling the truth and didn't know about the mass executions behind the lines -- to soft-soap the Army's involvement in the killing of Jews is typical of the kind of bias and skewing we're talking about in Vinther's editing.

I found these two instances in about a half-hour. Going through 20,000 edits would, obviously, take a much longer time, and there's no denying that many, if not most, of his edits are innocuous. But if I could find these in 30 minutes... BMK (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, diffs.

One of the problems here is that there are actually three threads on AN/I right now about Vinther (one is closed). The first one, #User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS, opened by @Poeticbent: is above. Here's what he had to say there:

Troubling development at article Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A quick glance shows that the article is slanted toward a certain point of view, with a barrage of unsupported statements that have nothing to do with historical facts. I'm not interested in edit warring with Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs). My new reference to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals was removed by Jonas Vinther ten minutes after it was added, with equally preposterous edit summary: "this is not the historical concensus".[165]

I have no idea where this user is going with his frenzy of edits painting the SS very grandiose. His reply to my comment at the talk page of Schutzstaffel indicates that he either does not ... or pretends not to understand what the problem is.[166]

Those familiar with the subject of Forced labour under German rule during World War II are well aware of the scale of the war crimes committed by the SS. Meanwhile, our article speaks of it this way: "the SS frequently hired civilian contract workers to perform such duties as maids, maintenance workers, and general laborers." Really?! User:Jonas Vinther constantly adds new material with no references. Nobody say anything about that I guess because nobody likes to be bullied into submission. Just look at his sourceless edits, the guy is on a mission: [167],[168],[169],[170].

Poeticbent talk 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So, there are some diffs and descriptions of Vinther's behavior to consider. BMK (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit was made in December 2013 -- when I started editing Wikipedia and was unfamiliar with its polices, so you can scratch that as evidence. The 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony article clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY and is perfectly neutral in its context, so don't be too proud about having "found these two instances in about a half-hour", BMK. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But the edits to the SS article just happened, so don't be so sure that you're going to be able to continue to pull the wool over the community's eyes. BMK (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony probably does pass Wikipedia's requirements for notability, but that doesn't make it historical notable. It's a mere footnote, worth a passing mention at best. BMK (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said from the very beginning, list one edit I made to the SS article that's shows I'm unable to edit neutrally. You see the large section on the Waffen-SS in World War II? Yea... I wrote all that, go ahead and read. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonas, unsourced edits such as these [171][172] really do come across as fanboy writing trying to glorify the SS, and is certainly not neutral. You need to be able to see this if you want to convince me that you understand what neutrality means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

·maunus, first of all, I always list my text first and then add sources (WICH I DID). Secondly, list the specific parts that is non-neutral because I don't see anything. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

An unrelated problem (refering to adding sources after text). Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So, you see nothing wrong in extolling the Waffen-SS's "undying fame" in the first edit? And you think that this, in the secodn edit, is appropriate encyclopedic writing: "In turn, the men of the Waffen-SS knew that they could expect little mercy if captured by the Russians. This increased their resolve never to surrender as the carnage continued." BMK (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The "undying fame" bit CAME DIRECTLY from this BBC source (minute 25:20) and "in turn, the men of the Waffen-SS knew that they could expect little mercy if captured by the Russians. This increased their resolve never to surrender as the carnage continued" CAME FROM THE SAME SOURCE and is not non-neutral. As you can see by checking the link and specific minute mentioned, I was just using phrases (such as "undying fame") that World Media Rights had initially written, NOT MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE BATTLE OF KHARKOV. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ouch! That's gotta hurt, BMK. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So, you're saying that you used a direct quote without quoting it, as well as well as without providing a cited source? BMK (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, please stop pinging me, it's annoying, I think you can count on the fact that if you post to this thread I will see it, eventually. BMK (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, are we no longer pointlessly dissing each other? Well, I guess you should be the one to close it since you started it. And it's not a quote. Get it right. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got it wrong. I'm providing evidence for why you should be topic banned from the subject of Nazi Germany and Fascism, broadly construed. I don't know what you're doing, but I guess "pointlessly dissing" is as good a description as any. BMK (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, your comments "funny this guy too is a sleight of hand artist like Hitler was" is very civil and point-proving. Gotcha! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your memory fails you: I did not make that remark, [173], but I suppose to a Fascist, all anti-Fascists look alike. BMK (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Abstaining I think a case has been made for Jonas Vinther not always showing great maturity in personal communications, but I'm lacking a concise overview of diffs establishing a problem in articles. I'm not saying they aren't there (so not opposing) but they haven't been given (so not supporting). Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The "undying fame" diff cited by Maunus above [174] really is the smoking gun here, together with Jonas' attempts at defending it. First, Jonas claimed (here, just above) that he added sources to that passage, but at the end of an extensive series of edits by him reaching into the next day, the entire section he had been expanding clearly still didn't have a single source [175]. Second, saying that the glorifying POV qualifier "undying fame" had been taken directly from some source doesn't change the fact that it was irresponsible POV editing in the slightest. A sourced POV statement is still a POV statement. Wikipedia doesn't simply take over such value judgments from sources as if they were our own. This is a reckless, efundamental failure at understanding what proper NPOV writing means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • World Media Rights make some solid, reliable world war 2 documentaries. The so-called "smoking gun" is not acceptable as "evidence" when I cited it from a sourced regarded as reliable. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I've now checked several paragraphs of the text Jonas Vinther added during those days against that video he was citing [176]. Almost all of the text I saw was near-identical, word by word, to the video text. So we have an extensive issue of plagiarism/copyright violation on top of the POV problems here. (Note that the source was acknowledged through footnotes in some passages, though not in others; but this doesn't make a difference as far as the plagiarism is concerned). Jonas Vinther: you'd better clarify, quickly, whether other contributions of yours might suffer from similar problems. If I don't see you actively helping to clean up this copyright mess very soon, I will block you indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I wasn't aware that it was a copyvio to copy words on screen into text. Most of my additions to the main SS article regarding the Waffen-SS in World War II is from that documentary. And no, I don't recall having done that on other articles, but I've cited plenty of WMR-documentaries on lots of articles throughout the years. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 01:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • "I wasn't aware that it was a copyvio to copy words on screen into text" is very worrying, and raises questions about basic competency in regard to copyright issues. For instance, when I complained about his use of "undying fame" in regard to the Waffen-SS, and he responded that it "CAME DIRECTLY from this BBC source", but claimed that although he "was just using phrases (such as "undying fame") that World Media Rights had initially written," it didn't need to be quoted because "it's not a quote". Obviously, if the WMR documentary said "undying fame" and he carried it over into the article, then it was either a quote or plagiarism -- but he doesn't seem to recognize that words spoken in a TV documentary are copyrighted. So, what else is he not recognizing as being copyrighted? What else is he quoting directly without indicating that it's a direct quote? How para is his paraphrasing? Do we need to open a CCI on him? BMK (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Another diff Another telling recent diff is [177] in which Jonas added detailed material on an SS officer who blackmailed the mayor of Belgrade into surrendering by threatening to have the city bombed with an edit summary praising that officer ("OFC KLINGENBERG, WOOOHOOOO"). Discussion on the talk page has noted that this material is also much too detailed for the top-level article on the SS, and I can only imagine that Jonas added this as he finds the officer admirable judging from the edit summary. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As you would have noticed had you look at the other edit summaries before the one in question, I had just finished writing HUGE sections on the Waffen-SS in Poland, France, Yugoslavia. The "WOOOHOOO" remark was celebrating I was finally finished for the day by adding the part on Klingenberg! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I very much doubt that given there's no reason to have added almost a para on a single officer to this top-level article. On a related topic, the problems with Jonas' edits to the Horst Wessel article have also been noted above, to which I'd add the fact that he uploaded a photo of Wessel's killer with the rather POV title of File:Mug shot of Albrecht Höhler, active communist member and the man who murdered Horst Wessel, 1933.gif, which is rather worrying in light of the anti-Communist and pro-Fascist stuff previously on his user page. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I only added emphasis on Klingenberg because the cited BBC source above did so. I only started improving Horst Wessel because of a suggestion by Diannaa; I have no strong feelings about him at all and would never have started editing his article otherwise. Lastly, the title "Mug shot of Albrecht Höhler, active communist member and the man who murdered Horst Wessel, 1933" was DIRECTLY CITED from Siemens 2013 and is a TEXT HE USES. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's worth remembering who Jonas Vinther is. He's the editor who, in this edit, added to his user page, this infobox: User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist

Now, yes, this is not articlespace, this is userspace, but what we're talking about here is whether an editor who is proud to display that userbox on his userpage has the proper judgment to understand what editing with a WP:NPOV means when dealing with the subjects of which he is proud to be associated, Fascism and Nazi Germany. With that userbox and the statement I highlighted above ("I have come to realize Wikipedia is extremely anti-fascist and pro-democratic.") it's quite clear what Vinther's personal views are, and the number of diffs and examples which have been provided show pretty darn conclusively that he is not capable of separating his person views from his duty as a Wikipedia editor to be neutral. As Vinther himself says, he's not interested in what Wikipedia is looking for, -- neutrality, and verifiability -- "I'm only interested in truth, not verifiability, and this set of mind contradicts Wikipedia..." which indeed it does. Yet the lure of Wikipedia is too much for him. "I can find better ways to put my genius to work," he says, and he "retires", but only temporarily, because if your mission is to WP:right great wrongs and spread "truth", Wikipedia is the most powerful game in town.

Let's do the right thing, here, let's not mess this up the way so many other things have gotten messed up recently. The evidence is crystal clear that to protect Wikipedia from his mission to spread "truth", Vinther needs to be topic banned. BMK (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I said "I have come to realize Wikipedia is extremely anti-fascist and pro-democratic" in the heat of the moment. I still insist I've always remained neutral when editing ANY kind of articles on Wikipedia. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It is at times when one's inhibitions are lessened, such as when drunk or in the "heat of the moment", that thoughts we have been hiding are likely to come tumbling out. I have no doubt that those words represent your true feelings. The evidence presented here amply shows that, whatever you may think, you have not maintained your neutrality when editing. BMK (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, did putting that "I am a Fascist" infobox happen in the "heat of the moment" as well? BMK (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, but you cannot topic ban me without providing concrete-solid evidence I'm unable to edit political articles without involving my own personal views. Despite the length of this discussion, you have failed to do just that. 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!)

Actually, the evidence is quite clear and strong, but, just as you do not see your lack of neutrality, you do not see the strength of the evidence. BMK (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely you don't place info boxes if you don't believe them to be correct? The instances mentioned above are clear what your views are. You have also mentioned that you have "mental issues" on your Talk page. Is that a reason for your edits? I now support a complete ban. David J Johnson (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Reading through this thread and the diffs has made me ill. There is no way this editor should be editing anything related to these topics. No way. Dave Dial (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a shame you can't see what finger I'm holding up right now, David. I can only tell you it comes from the heart. Anyway, I think this comment below by me found in Hitler's talk page archive shows I'm more than able to neutrality edit Wikipedia.

I have watched Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told and I can say for all those who's wondering that it's a useless peace of crap! It's made a convinced Nazi who properly used something like Windows Movie Maker to make it. It's essentially a combination of a bunch of World War II documentaries pitched together. The documentary contains extremely many historical errors, is filled with obvious Nazi-point of views and completely contradicts some of the most basic points in both Hitler's life and political reasons behind World War II. In short, it should never be considered a reliable source or used for anything on Wikipedia. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)"

Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It bears repeating, Jonas Vinther to David Dial David J. Johnson: "It's a shame you can't see what finger I'm holding up right now, David. I can only tell you it comes from the heart.". Let's put it in the collection with this, Jonas Vinther to Nick-D, just above on this page: "If I'm such a horrible editor, ban me and Wikipedia becomes a better encyclopedia. GO SUCK IT!" BMK (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That was not directed at David Dial, that directed to David J. Johnson. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've corrected it, as if it makes a big difference to whom you were saying "Fuck you." BMK (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As if it's okay to comment on somebody's mental issues. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

He said you've talked about your mental issues on your talk page, is that correct, did you? Please bear in mind that WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. BMK (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Two different discussions. And thanks for the much-needed link. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you did talk about your "social and mental issues" on your talk page just yesterday, in this edit, and that you used these as an explanation or excuse for your behavior. Since you brought it up spontaneously, of your own accord and without prompting, you're in no position to complain when other editors refer to it, or to give them the finger. BMK (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I won't be following what's going on here anymore. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In all fairness, before you "retire" from this discussion, you had better read this edit from Future Perfect at Sunrise, who is an admin. Because it occurred in the middle of the thread, it's easy to miss. BMK (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support The user shows severe problems with using appropriate sources for articles on the topic. Please see sourcing discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants/archive1. P. S. Burton (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• SupportI'm not bothered that he is a fascist. All points of view are welcome here. But his proud stance against verifiability, and his desire to tell the Truth©. That isn't what we are about. The National Socialists weren't shy about The Holocaust and were aren't going to be shy about it either. --Adam in MO Talk 03:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Propose block

• Support as proposer: prevent growing disruption. Jusdafax 00:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Are you talking about a temporary block for a specific time, or an indef block? And are you proposing this as a replacement for the proposed topic ban, or in addition to it? BMK (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Either, for both questions, at the discretion of the blocking admin. I'd just indef him right now for disruptive rhetoric, and let the dust serttle. See what his unblock statement is. (Update: Oops looks like some copyvio issues cropping up, so a disruption block is likely moot.) Jusdafax 01:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is something of a re-evaluation of my position from what I said in the previous discussion, but I think that the topic ban is more important than a block. It's possible that Vinther can edit neutrally in other areas of his interest, such as sleight-of-hand magic, and it might be worthwhile to the project to see if that's the case - with a very short leash, of course. If not, if he's unable to edit profitably elsewhere and causes disruption, he can be blocked at that time. The important thing is to keep him away from Nazi Germany and Fascism and related subjects - sure, an indef block would do that, but it also means that if he's unblocked by an admin not aware of the circumstances (which happens more often than it should) he can just go back to editing the same subjects again. So, for me, it's a matter of priorities: a topic ban first and then, if it's warrated, a block. BMK (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'd also note that while Jonas' conduct in this discussion has been unhelpful and rude, being the subject of an ANI thread is stressful and he should be cut some slack for it. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Is there any reason that he couldn't continue to edit articles about his other hobby, magic tricks? Has he been disruptive in that topic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into it closely, the only thing I'm aware of is his creation of the article about the how-to magic book Totally Out of Control, which was merged into the author's article as a result of an AfD discussion. BMK (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pleas note I singlehandedly brought Sleight of hand, a level-4 rated article, to GA-status. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Considering Jonas has yet to act on the copy right violations, I would have thought that would have taken precedence over any other disruption. Blackmane (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If he's violating copyrights, he should be jackbooted ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Frankly, Jonas conduct is not good on any Wikipedia articles: constant "retirements" and then back within a few days, insulting and unnecessary comments directed at other editors and apparent copyright violations. The question has to asked: is he here to improve the project - I think not. David J Johnson (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I am not surprised with the outcome (topic block) and clearly Jonas did not heed the advice given earlier (above). I do think for clarity sake that the terns of the indefinite topic ban should be spelled out. BMK had a valid point in his query of coverage. Re-reading above it appears to only cover Nazi Germany articles.Kierzek (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Jonas Vinther would not to stop, until somebody else stopped him. The reason why he was welcomed by others to keep on expanding the SS article without revealing any of his sources was twofold; first, because he is too smart to ever let the cheap crap slip in; and second, because he uses only the Nazi and Neo-Nazi publications written up to his standard. Please, let us not be taken for fools. His antics were accepted based on the assumption of good faith with ​your ​eyes ​shut. – The results were bound to bring us all here; and it will happen again. People like Jonas Vinther do not go back to writing about flowers. The topic ban was absolutely necessary. However, the working presence of this user account is not necessary for the joint benefit of the project. For the sake of argument, I just re-read the Ideology of the SS article which he helped bring to the "good article" status. – I am deeply troubled. I know how Wikipedia works. It takes up to ten years sometimes before things are straighten out. Under the pretext of quote-unquote "GA-improvement" he removed all references to the "ideological indoctrination" (-2,871) and replaced them with quote-unquote "purity, fitness, and exercises" (what a joke). After that, he created his own new section (+2,240) about the love of animals and support for animal rights by the SS. This is sickening. Please look around. An example of animal treatment by the invading force is in the article Pacification actions in German-occupied Poland, quote (supported by a solid reference): "The inquiries by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance into massacres in specific locations are ongoing.[1] Historical data collected in Poland confirms the complete destruction of 554,000 farms valued at 6.062 million złoty (1938 level) with 8 million dead cattle and horses, on top of terrible human losses.[3]" – So much for the animal welfare in the SS. And, who's gonna fix that "good article" now, I ask. Poeticbent talk

These are excellent points. I suggest compromised articles be identified and tagged, for starters. The POV edits have got to be reverted and removed, and NPOV firmly established or re-established, as I see it. But it's a huge amount of work, and the topic makes most people feel sick. I don't even want to look at some of these articles, much less work on them. Jusdafax 20:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Put block discussion on hold - I know that for Vinther to "retire" is farcical, but, at least for the moment, he's not editing. I suggest we put this discussion on hold for the time being to see if he returns, and what he does if he comes back. If he unretires yet again, as is likely, and his edits are disruptive, then I would suggest not starting a whole new discussion, but rescuing this discussion from the archives and re-activating it. BMK (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as original proposer I agree. Suggest finding a central place to discuss his edit history, however. Jusdafax 02:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Where would you suggest? Maybe the talk page of the SS article, or oneof the other articles he heavily contribuited to? BMK (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe better would be WP:NPOVN? BMK (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If he's "retired", why not just indef the account? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any policy support for doing that, especially since we know from past experience that he "retires" and unretires at the drop of a hat. BMK (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocking him would at least compel him to ask permission to unretire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

True.BMK (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• STRONG OPPOSE All sanction against Jonas Vinther. He can keep his political beliefs out of his editing and remain neutral. David J Johnson is the instigator in this, as are some Croatian hardliners.Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• This is a just created account which has five edits to this board. Looks like sockpuppetry to me. BMK (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Increasing protection level duration

Hi all. Banned user Vote (X) for Change has continuously disrupted the boards with their trolling and harassment of many editors here for quite some time now. Not just the boards but the Reference desks as well. All the protections made on ANI, AN, and the Reference desks have been limited in duration since quite a bit of anon traffic does edit these areas. A suggestion has been made to me that the duration of the protection should be one month. I understand that this will have significant impact so before trying anything drastic, I'd like to hear some input on what you guys would like. Longer or shorter protection, or no protection?

I'd like to note that an edit filter will likely not be effective here and would have to be continuously modified to be moderately effective. Rangeblocking is not an option. Elockid ^{Message me} 02:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to suggest 2 weeks rather than 4, at this point. Impose 2-week protection on all of them, and once it expires, the moment that troll rears its ugly head, slap another 2 weeks on all of them. If 2 weeks proves insufficient after a few tries, up it to 3 for a while, then 4 for a while, and so on. If he has to wait several weeks every time, he might get tired of the routine and find something better to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Doing it in steps merely trains them to return. The value of starting with a month is the possibility the user might find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • All well and good, except that it punishes legitimate IP editors also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Where's the disruption? They posts, someone reverts, life goes on. Respecting the editors who choose to edit without an account is more important than worrying about someone no one is really paying attention to, anyway. NE Ent 04:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good in theory, but it's an IP-hopper who won't stop posting his junk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This comment describes the situation. Not so much on ANI/AN since these pages have a high a number of watchers. Though on occasion, there doesn't appear to be any admins present for a short time and this troll engages in edit warring with non-admins. For example on November 9, 94.192.27.218 (talk · contribs) and 86.146.168.130 (talk · contribs) were used to edit war. Elockid ^{Message me} 04:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Except that the troll-in-question, is causing ANI & AN (for examples) to be habitually semi-protected, due to its persistance. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would easier to simply ignore their comments instead of immediately removing them. Their reports are generally nonsense anyways. I think they thrive off of the perceived injustice of not being able to say their piece, whatever it is. clpo13_(talk) 04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is that trolling which is rife with personal attacks should not be allowed to stand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Bugs. Personal attacks against our editors need to be prevented, not ignored. HighInBC 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just RBI unless there's an unusually energetic burst of trolling. Keep protections short when possible. RD regulars should know about DNFTT and practice it. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

On a tangential note: Why isn't User:Vote (X) for Change included over at WP:LTA? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made a rough draft at User:Elockid/Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Elockid ^{Message me} 23:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:LTA is a difficult area. My guess is that making a page (even a draft) for this editor would be unhelpful because they seem to thrive on attention. I think everyone should stop linking or mentioning their name. Edit summaries should be "[[WP:DENY]]" only. LTA is only useful to provide long-term memory for dealing with the problem, but there are pleny of people who know what to do. Unfortunately there are a couple of editors at the reference desks who love talking and liberty, and they inflame the situation by reverting the removal of messages. Next time that happens I think the editors concerned should be given a final warning or preferably topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on their trolling, not identifying who they are will only lead to more fuel that they have been unbanned or they're not really socking. Labeling the reverts as WP:DENY, banned user, socking, etc. has the same exact effect. They come back and you'll have a bogus report about how inappropriate your edit was. Elockid ^{Message me} 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Brian Redban (again)

Its been several years, back in 2012 there were a group of IPs and newly created accounts that were creating articles for Brian Redban using variations on the name, all obviously coordinating off-wiki. See prior discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#IP hoard (from Oct 2011)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Redban (from April 2012)

All the articles from that time were deleted and article creation was blocked under those names.

The same was taking place again today at Brian Redban Reichle - an obviously off-wiki coordinated effort - once again relying solely on primary sources and trivial mentions. Since deleting and blocking page creation of the new name, I've been receiving a barrage of NPA comments on my user talk page.

Would appreciate others to review and monitor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Redban is definitely notable in the comedy scene, but as for being notable for Wikipedia, the sourcing requirements are a bit strict. I would recommend a redirect to a parent article, such as The Naughty Show or Joe Rogan. I think a redirect is a fair compromise as he is associated with the JRE show as a co-host, and as a producer and director of TNS. Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. The problem I'm seeing here is that while he has been associated with some other subjects that meet notability requirements, notability is not inherited. If he ever receives adequate third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, he would certainly qualify for his own article at that point. The question then is under which of the multiple articles should a redirect be created (or should several of them?). There's Brian Redban Reichle, Brian Redban, Brian "Redban" Reichle, Brian Reichle, and Brian Reichle (Brian Redban) - all of which have been create-protected (most for several years). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that notability was inherited, I was making the observation that his name is primarily associated with those two topics in a professional capacity. All the other permutations of "Brian Redban" are just attempts to get around the protected target. Wikipedia can continue to ignore him, but it does appear that he is already widely associated with the above two topics. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Users who continously engage in bad breath WP:nobadbreath when we should assume good breath are sure considerations for a ban in my mind at least. 87.95.126.13 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Did you mean no WP:BADFAITH? In any case, this isn't what I'd consider bad faith since there is a long history here of people trying to get around the 2012 deletion rather than seeking recreation through the proper channels. It's well within Barek's right to delete and salt the newest incarnation of the article, as well as to express concern over the persistent recreation of articles in the past. Now if you do want to contest the deletion, the proper way to do this would be to ask for restoration via WP:DRV. Normally we'd say that you should approach the admin that closed the AfD first, but Ron Ritzman has only made one edit (in October) since July of this year and is unlikely to swiftly respond, if at all. I'd recommend against anyone restoring it without going through DRV given the recreation attempts. In any case, taking it to AfD means that you need to make an especially strong case for recreation. You can do this by showing where Redban has received in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS. Primary sources cannot show notability and although you might be able to make an argument for notability based on the fact that he's involved with two notable shows, this is hampered by the fact that the article for JRE has been deleted at AfD for not having enough notability to be independent of Rogan himself. Given the article history the evidence will need to be exceptionally strong because in situations like this there's sometimes a strong inclination to uphold prior delete consensus. If you do decide to go this route, make sure that you only stick to sourcing and notability. Asking for others to be banned for actions that look to be within policy will likely not go over well at DRV or on other boards in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Alcohol Justice

Hello, I don't know where to post this, so for the meantime I will post it here. While I was checking the recent changes for vandalism, an edit on Alcohol Justice was tagged as possible vandalism. When I checked the page history, it was so complicated that I couldn't make sense of it. So I need an experienced editor to verify what's going on. (Sorry if this is not the right place to post) - Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you ignore all the editing from today in one piece, it's the same version as in July so I think it's all safe now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting sourced materials

User being reported : Nalanidil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user claiming that he is defending his dynasty (he is saying that he is an Ottoman) is deleting sourced materials from articles about late Ottoman queens. He provides no sources and claim that he knows better because he is from the family !

I tried to revert him but he keeps reverting back on those articles here for Safiye Sultan article and here for Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan

Trying to communicate with him on his talk page and convince him to use the articles talk pages led to nowhere User_talk:Nalanidil#Deletion_on_Ottoman_sultanas_pages

I dont want to engage in edit wars but he should restore the sourced material and stop inserting his version and understand that he has no business editing the articles as a member of the family. Only as a normal user with reliable sources.

He is claiming that the sources are wrong and that he knows better. I told him to take those sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but he refused insisting that he knows better and now he is just deleting !!!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

repeat that guy isnt stopping, why isnt any admin interested in protecting those articles !!!!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor blocked 31 hours for vandalism: repeated removal of AfD tag at Princess Şehime and repeated SPEEDY tagging after having it declined at other pages. He had already received multiple warnings about disruption of process and edit-warring. DMacks (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban for Nalanidil

• Support User clearly isn't interested in building an encyclopedia. Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• The above editor is a brand new account, with only 5 edits to this board to their name. Socking, anyone? BMK (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose CBAN You don't use a hammer on everything, and a CBAN is jumping to the very end of solutions. Perhaps Jabberwock2112 has a history in which a previous incarnation was CBAN-ed and now they want to bless others with the same pleasure. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

IP or hounding?

I ran into an edit warring IP, 107.10.236.42 (talk · contribs), at Rabbi, and then I saw on my talkpage that When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk · contribs) claims this IP has a named account on Wikipedia he doesn't log in to , for some reason. On User_talk:When_Other_Legends_Are_Forgotten#Stop_Wikihounding_me the IP claims he is being hounded by When Other Legends Are Forgotten, while When Other Legends Are Forgotten claims he must use his named account.

I think that When Other Legends Are Forgotten is correct, that the IP must log in to his account, to make sure he doesn't avoid sanctions. I even think that in such a case it should be allowed to stalk the IP, to make sure he doesn't avoid any sanctions.

Can some admin please look into the matter, and take the necessary measures? I have posted a notification on both talkpages. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I had an account, "there is no policy against editing while logged out."

On the other hand, @Debresser:, edit warring like you did at Rabbi is against policy. I'm glad you finally found your way to Talk:Rabbi; now maybe you can explain why you want to change language that's been in the article for years -- as I've repeatedly asked you to do. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The same policy page you quote also says "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account" - so let me be direct : Do you have an account? yes or no? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, 107.10.236.42. Don't forget it takes 2 to edit war. In addition, as far as I am concerned, you are one of the many pushy IPs with POV contributions, and I am doing this project a favor by stopping you from pushing your POV. And I happen to be very sincere in that conviction of mine in your case, because it is obvious to me you came here with an agenda. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I am joining my colleagues in expressing significant concerns about user 107.10.236.42 (talk · contribs). S/he indeed is quite pushy with POV as demonstrated on countless of occasions, along with suspicious IPs tagging along him/her. WP:SOCK? But what concerns me the most, is that s/he quickly deletes notices and warnings from talk page, including this notice to Administrators' noticeboard [178], and does this frequently with disparaging remarks as in here: "Taking out the trash" [179]. MarkYabloko 07:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What concerns me the most is that you still haven't read the talk page guidelines. And yet you deleted my messages from your talk page without comment. So perhaps you figured out that deleting talk page messages is not vandalism. I'm sorry it took a little trip to WP:AIV for you to learn that lesson. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a registered account, yes or no? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to open an SPI on Debresser and When Other Legends Are Forgotten. It smells like a duck pond here. Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking for a sock investigation into an 8-year editor with 84,846 edits and several edit privileges is not nice. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Lahiri Mahasaya page problems

• Lahiri Mahasaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many IP addresses posting without consensus, deleting content with valid references, promoting a particular person without reliable sources, two other editors and myself have reverted the edits and he or they keeps putting it back. Need an administrator to take over. I have reverted twice myself and he keeps putting it back. Not able to leave a notice because he is using different computers - 3 at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahiri_Mahasaya Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a couple of days to stop the disruption. Requests for page protection can also be filed at WP:RFPP. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Misbehavior by Semitransgenic

There has been long term content dispute among several editors on featured article Shah Rukh Khan. There is long discussion on talk page. After recent edit war on that page between me and Semitrasgenic, I restored pre-dispute FA version to go for WP:DRN. But he changed that version to without having consensus. See article history. We both made 3 reverts, to stop further edit war I gave him routine edit war notice, but in return he gave me holy shit. But anyway, in good faith "holy shit" is acceptable but his fart is not acceptable and what shit he does on his talk page that I should not care but he should not do it on my talk page. At least he should be warned so that he will not do such things again.--Human3015^TALK  22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

He's been blocked for other unrelated incivility for 72 hours by Roger Davies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@NativeForeigner: can we go ahead and get an indef and a revocation of talk page access? If you review their talk page and see their unblock request and other such comments they have went beyond pushing the envelope and it's more than clear they are WP:Nothere.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Or @Roger Davies:, or at any other admin for that matter.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[180] [181] Their behavior is just escalating further. This coming after the block. There's no actual reason to even consider that their disruption will cease after this block ends.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Block extended to 1 week and talk page access revoked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well done Neil. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Borderline threats

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

---

From a paid editor User:Mnoar are being made on my talk page here [182]. Happy to send the confirmation of the amount this person is paid by the company in question to any admin who pings me. It is available on https://projects.propublica.org/

Likely the page could use protecting aswell Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question lost any moral high ground by saying "How would the ethics panel at your University regard this type of baseless false accusation and supercilious behavior? I am betting that you have crossed a line here ethically. Want to find out?" That's a personal threat akin to a legal threat, and it cannot be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned it was well past borderline; Bugs, you are absolutely correct--thank you. Also, I am against betting on religious grounds; "betting and wagering of any kind are not permitted in the happy place". I have thus indef-blocked the editor and I think Doc should, just to dot the i's, start an SPI and ask for a quick CU. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Kudpung

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

---

While perusing the questions and answers for the arbcom candidates, I noticed an unusual amount of uncivil behavior and personal attacks coming from administrator Kudpung.[183] The more egregious of the attacks were directed towards two users, Smallbones,[184] and Leaky caldron.[185] After realizing with some horror that this person was not only an admin but actually running for arbcom, I made my way to their talk page to let them know what I had found, asking them calmly to change their approach.[186] Instead of acknowledging my concerns and vowing to improve, Kudpung then launched into more personal attacks, blaming the editors questioning him for causing him to attack them and calling my request for civility a personal attack and incivility in itself, followed by a separate attack and veiled threat to block me in the future on my talk page.[187]. Because Kudpung is not receptive to repeated requests to stop the incivility and personal attacks against multiple users (Leaky caldron tried as well), and because Kudpung personally retaliates against editors, I'm requesting community input on Kudpung's fitness as an editor, admin and arbcom candidate, and his failure to uphold and follow basic civility and refrain from personal attacks after being asked to stop. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't been asked to stop. In fact others persit in having the last word and requiring further answers. In spite of attempts to brand me as a pederast and a mysoginist, the most poignant statement I made anywhere was: If you have read my nomination statement, I'm sure you will understand and will be able to rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin. Take note, and be honest Viriditas, point everyone to the PA you left on my talk page and the reply from me which you hastily removed from your talk page, because that's all I have to say here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Viriditas: Campaign statements do not belong at ANI—please don't be so transparent. The numerous links in the OP show Kudpung is not tugging his forelock while answering questions, but that's it. I agree the last diff shows an unwise comment, but it's not a matter for ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, some entertaining Q/A have been posted. The question about "Grammar Badguy" might have been this. That's pretty outrageous! I suppose it's good to test how candidates react to inappropriate poking? Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• It seems to me that these are hustings in an election. If a candidate expresses themselves in a manner that a voter feels to be inappropriate then the option is to oppose them, by either standing in the election themselves or by lodging an "oppose" vote, or both. Hustings in real life often have strongly held opinions expressed with vigour. The difference, the only real difference, with real life and Wikipedia is that the hustings here are recorded for posterity. I don't see this as material for this forum. The remedy for the editor complaining and any other editor is available in the ballot box. Fiddle Faddle 15:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• (EC)I have to agree with @Johnuniq: on this. This is not an issue for ANI to deal with. I'd guess the only place to take it would be to the election committee (but I don't see the need), and ultimately the voters will decide.
• That said, I will explain my questions.The first is designed to bring out the candidates views on the bullying of women editors (especially) and in that sense is fairly pointed, which I think is fair in the context of an election. @Kudpung:'s answer, with his "citation needed" and strong suggestion that we don't have policies dealing with bullying, seemed to deny that there is a problem, that the Atlantic article was the only time this problem had ever arisen. So I provided the requested citations. I regret using the word "ignorant" in the question "Is it possible that you were just ignorant of the problem?" - when I could have used "unaware." Sorry. That's all I can see here. Please let the voters decide, and somebody should close this thread IMHO. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

As a member of the electoral commission, I am inclined to decline any involvement. If anyone wants a definitive answer they would have to ask the full commission for a ruling, but I predict that the answer will be "decline". Addressing civility issues in questions is not in our mandate. Problems of this nature should be dealt with at ANI, as this was (and I agree with the close). I would ask that ANI regulars keep an eye out for subtle canvassing using ANI or AN reports and discourage such behavior where appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean on the order of: "<redacted> and <redacted> are idiots, but <redacted> is great and should be elected?" Subtle stuff like that? BMK (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed boomerang indef for Viriditas User clearly engages in vexatious smear campaigns that are at odds with the values of Wikipedia. Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive campaign by IP hopper in United Arab Emirates, ongoing

For quite some time already, an IP hopper in the United Arab Emirates is disrupting WP and going after several users, using very obscene language [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196]. Both I and some other have protected user pages and talk pages as a consequence, and the user has also taken to ANI [197],

In addition to this personal attacks, the user is pushing an anti-Christian and pro-Muslim POV on several articles, [198], [199], [200], [201], [202].

Some of the IPs are blocked (at least ten, I believe) while others (such as 176.204.58.178, 173.35.129.54, 2.48.70.55 and 31.219.96.85) remain active. It's obvious that this exceptionally aggressive vandal is an established user as they know WP and WP terminology well. I think an IP range block would be called for, given the extensive disruption. Jeppiz (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been attacked by the same person in the same way (e.g. [203]) sometimes dozens of times in a day on several of my user pages including, distinctively, archives. It started in May. Until about a couple of weeks ago, they were routing their IP around random global locations eg [204] and [205]. So, I'm not sure a range block would work. I don't know what the technical options are. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've also been targeted by the same person; Jeppiz gives some of the diffs above. The IP-hopper repeatedly calls me a "son of a whore" or accuses me of molesting my mother. The edits have been on my user page, my user talk page and my user talk archives. The IP-hopper seems to be well-acquainted with Wikipedia terminology as he told me to read WP:NOTTHEM when I first posted at ANI about him. The person seems to be targeting me and Jeppiz because we reverted him when he repeatedly posted at Talk:Jesus that Jesus was the "bastard son of a whore" (or something along those lines). I took the liberty of running about half a dozen of the IPs through an IP tracker and all of them came up as in the United Arab Emirates. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In true troll fashion, the user even alerts DeCausa and me to articles we (or at least I) have never edited, so it's obvious it's only done to disrupt. [206], [207] Jeppiz (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The latest is creating accounts just to host the attacks: User talk:Decausa (i.e. lower case 'c' is a new/separate account to mine. Btw, I don't think there's an actual "Muslim POV" going on here - per Mary in Islam no real Muslim would ever say this. Looks like just a disturbed teenager trying to think of something to say he thinks will shock. DeCausa (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought when he kept on targeting the article about Jesus, who Islam reveres as second only to Muhammad. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both users above, I meant to say that he (trolls are seldom female) tries to pass it off that way. It's a troll, pure and simple, pretending to be a Muslim. Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that long WP:AGF and WP:NPA violation. Everyone can check my edits and see that i am not pushing an anti-christian or a pro-Muslim POV. In fact, I am only pushing WP:NPOV, while this cabal of pro-christianity bigots are pushing anti-Muslim pro-christian POV. All my edits are focused only on removing honorific titles from the articles of christian figures per WP:NPOV. These christian bigots keep removing honorifics titles from articles of Muslim figures under the claim that they violate neutrality, but when someone like me removing these honorifics from articles of christian figures they fell offended. That is the point.. Same: these christian bigots pretend that wikipedia is secular while editing muslim related articles but they turn into claiming that wikipedia is for christians while editing christian related figures.--189.196.129.102 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that the IP (who has already been blocked around 20 times in the last 24 hours) claim to "only push WP:NPOV", I'd like to point out (lest anyone believes it) that the IPs edits include vandalism like changing the lead in the the good article Constantine the Great from saying Constantine the Great to "Constantine son of the whore" [208], or by changing the caption of the picture to say "The Dickhead Constantine" [209]. So much for the claiomed WP:NPOV. The user has caused 20 IPs to be blocked and dozens of articles to be protected, and is no doubt proud of that. Given the large disruption caused, I hope a throrough check-user could be performed to permanently ban the sock-master and to impose an IP-range block. Jeppiz (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of targeted articles

This is a list of the expanding number of articles the IP hopper targets. Saint Peter
Hulagu Khan
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
Battle of Siffin
Umar
Constantine the Great
Mark the Evangelist
Helena (empress)
User:DeCausa
User:Cliftonian
User:Jeppiz
User:Alessandro57
Talk:Jesus
Talk:Jesus/FAQ
Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus)
WP:ANI
WP:RfPP
As it's neither just one article nor just one user, I think an range block is the only reasonable option, especially as the user actively seeks out new articles when the targeted ones are protected. The only goal is trolling what the user sees as "Christians" (in fact anything related to Western culture), meaning there are hundreds of possible targets. Blocking IPs from the UAE seems like a lesser disruption than protecting hundreds of articles. Jeppiz (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the collateral damage in effectively blocking the entire UAE? Blackmane (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the question I also pondered, though probably less than either protecting hundreds of pages or having WP:GA articles repeatedly vandalized. as in [210]. Out of several bad options, it's probably the one with the least collateral damage. Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

He's now at 176.204.38.78, it seems. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Now 103.10.199.149—which seems to be a Hong Kong IP address. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: & All: As far as technical options, a targeted blocking tool for IP-hopping trolls based on edit patterns should be feasible using Machine learning, but I don't know if the Wikimedia Foundation has this capability at the moment (I believe they have something similar for vandalism detection). It sounds like a fundamental problem, so it should. Do admins have ability to put in requests to the engineering department? If not, I can reach out to a former colleague there who specializes in this area. Msubotin (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Legacypac -- NAC closes as "delete"

User:Legacypac is not an admin. Nevertheless, earlier this morning they closed several AFDs not suitable for NAC closes, generally as "delete". They then placed G6 or G8 speedy tags on the articles involved. After objections (see User talk:Legacypac#Improper close), they reversed the invalid closes, but left the speedy tags in place. At least two admins, assuming good faith, acted on the speedies and deleted the articles.(see logs for Barechestedness, Korean drinking game, Leona Tuttle, Dwaitham) Rather than pointing out that their speedy nominations had been inappropriate, Legacypac then reclosed the AFDs. Legacypac's motive seems to be some sort of WP:POINTy, disruptive reaction to the Neelix fiasco [211] ("given what I see in the Neelix case Admins are no better then regular editors in good standing at showing common sense and making good decisions").

Yes, there's a certain amount of policy-wonkery here; I suspect most of the closes accurately read consensus. But this is so far out-of-process that it shouldn't stand; it won't take more than one or two repetitions (by this user or others) before disruption could be severe. We've seen enough problematic NAC "keep" closures. I propose that 1) the affected AFDs, the three listed above and any others that may exist, be reclosed by admins; and 2) that Legacypac be warned that any repetition will result in an NAC-closure topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

How about AGF? I read some policy and directions that suggested I could close all AfDs If you look at the description of G8 in twinkle and elsewhere you could easily think that too. I've rechecked the AfD closure pages and have a more complete understanding of policy now so there will be no close as deletes. I'm actually working hard to get experience in "close to" Admin area in preparation for an Admin application and that means learning stuff. And yes, the failure of Admins to deal with Neelix like any other editor makes threats against all other editors ring as unfair. Admins are supposed to be fair, not give free passes to other Admins. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And to clarify since an exaggeration of "several" was used only 1 close was even remotely not crystal clear, which I tagged it keep by default. The actual issue was it had been relisted and not ready to close yet, even though it was well into the Closed section. Learned something new. Legacypac (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Several" referred to discussions not suitable for NAC, which includes at least four "delete" closures. And I did assume good faith -- the main reason for coming here was your refusal to inform the admins who acted in good faith on your speedy tags that the tags had been placed incorrectly. Note also that you closed the Dwaitham AFD before the full seven days had run (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 22 for recent consensus on the issue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I never Refused to inform anyone. If Admins acted on a G8 G6 with a link to the deletion discussion, that was their decision. Anyway, I was still checking my reversals when you posted in ANi instead of continuing to engage on my talk page where I was very responsive. Legacypac (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think if you realized that you made mis-closures, then it would be reasonable to expect that you would delete the corresponding speedy tags, too, and if some admins failed to realize the AfD discussion had been un-closed, that is then your responsibility as well as theirs. If I'm understanding what happened correctly, anyway. LjL (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is sadly a long-standing process-wonkery issue. Non-admins can close discussions however shouldnt where the close requires admin tools - not because the close itself would be problematic, but only because they physically cant take the action required. Ideally there would be some sort of tag the NACloser can use for these cases so passing admins can delete, or perhaps the perennial unbundling of tools debates should allow article deletion to be assigned to non-admins in good standing who have shown they can judge an AFD correctly. Until then, dont close discussions if the closure would require you to take an action you cant actually take. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I used common sense and did a close (perfectly fine as a non-admin on a Requested Move and nearly every other part of the site) then immediately tagged the articles G8 G6 with a link to the deletion discussion, as Twinkle suggests. What I accidentally proved was a Admin sees the G8 G6, checks the link, and does the delete. If the Admin does not like the close they can overturn it with a quick undo. Is G8 G6 only for non-Admins to correct Admin mistakes then - where an Admin closes an AfD as delete but forgets to actually delete and then a non-admin uses a G8 G6 to suggest deletion? It sure seems like the whole system is set up for exactly what I did, except for a guideline that basically implies non-Admins are not trusted to establish consensus when 5 to 10 people agree to an AfD. Heck you don't even need the G8 G6, because Admins can see the not redlinked but closed AfDs and act on them. The non-admin close just saves them time. Legacypac (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talkpage G8 is not applicable to this situation: G8 is for "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" or "Subpages with no parent page" not for articles that should be deleted due to a "Delete" close at AfD. Jarkeld (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As for "Rather than pointing out that their speedy nominations had been inappropriate, Legacypac then reclosed the AFDs." No, a non-admin is allowed to close a discussion when an Admin has already deleted the article. I acted within existing policy here. 13:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

The problem is that neither G6 nor G8 as written are applicable. While closing a discussion where the page has already been deleted is ok, as it requires no use of tools, it had effectively been deleted incorrectly. Personally I think G8 could be rewritten to include 'as the result of a deletion discussion at AFD' or even a new G. However currently thats not the process and the relevant guideline is fairly clear on this. I am all for ignoring guidelines where they get in the way, but in this case the guideline is there because it prevents (what can clearly be seen above) subsequent hassle. Sometimes guidelines do exist for a good reason. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry G6 "Page where the deletion discussion was held" not G8. I used G8 for getting rid of Neelix redirects to deleted pages. Legacypac (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm well technically G6 does list the option to link a deletion discussion, but the wording above does not say or imply that and it has never been taken to mean that either. Technical deletions are just that, for technical reasons. Not as a result of content discussions - its a bit of a reach to say its a technical deletion because it has been agreed to delete it but you dont have the rights to do so. But I can see why you would feel the policy is unclear on that point. Suffice to say, 'we dont do that'. I would suggest someone closing this as no action and starting a discussion on the speedy deletion page to make it clearer and more explicit as to what is and isnt allowed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• There are even more problem's with Legacypac's closes. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lithuanians in France (2nd nomination) was closed with the unhelpful closing statement "The result was ". And that's it, no actual outcome or NAC acknowledgment stated outside the edit summary. And, despite their talk page assurances, Legacypac hasn't undone their invalid close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bahamas Bowl broadcasters is another invalid close they haven't undone. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelda McCague isn't acknowledged as an NAC, and the issue as to whether to delete the underlying bio while leaving a redirect wasn't clear-cut enough to justify an NAC. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beersheva bus station shooting isn't acknowledged as an NAC, and the closing statement is "keep due to no consensus", which isn't properly coherent, but, more important, this was a closely divided, controversial discussion in a highly controversial area (Israel-Palestine), and was absolutely not suitable for an NAC. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred M. Manning was closed as "keep" even though the !votes divided 2-2, and, unusually, all the !votes were grounded in policy arguments. This was plainly not suitable for an NAC, or even an admin close with a vacant closing statement that "The result is keep". On further reflection since my original post, I think that Legacypac has demonstrated a lack of WP:COMPETENCE in this particular area and should refrain from NACs until they can demonstrate much greater capability to appropriately apply deletion policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred M. Manning (non-controversial chap) There was a Nom, then one iVote delete, then an editor weighed in with sources and iVoted keep, then I weighed in with obits form the Denver Post and Los Angeles Times and iVoted keep. Perfectly proper close by Legacypac of an article that WP:HEY was well-sourced by the time Lecacypac closed it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are wrong and you fail to AGF. My success rate at deletion is very high. Most of us know that a split vote defaults to keep. Your gratuitous attacks on me are unwarranted. I'm learning how to do this function, honestly. How about focusing your efforts on sanctioning and blocking the person responsible for the backlog in AfD and RfD right now instead of hassling one of the people working to clean up the mess. Help me, don't act like a jerk and attack me. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A split vote does not default to keep. 'No consensus' defaults to keep. A consensus discussion takes into account the weights of the arguments provided. Manning for example should have been closed as 'keep' with the rationale that the keep voters provided stronger arguments (and in one of the participants cases, significantly improved the sourcing/article.) Not just 'keep' with no explanation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Umm not entire sure if Legacypac's aware but WP:BADNAC does state AFDs shouldn't be closed as Delete by non-admins, I did the exact thing -I closed 3-5 AFDs as Delete despite not being an admin and was told I shouldn't and that was the end of it ... If you're only closing Neelix-related articles as Delete then to be fair it's rather petty and unconstructive, Neelix got a good telling from everyone (myself included) so continuing it will only make it worse for you, I'm pissed off nothing got done but shit happens and life moves on. –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I was notified of this discussion as an involved third part, as I reverted a number of Legacypac's AfDs and I started the mentioned User talk:Legacypac#Improper close discussion in their TP. While at the time I had not enough time to investigate all their closures, after reviewing the multiple instances analyzed above by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I have to agree it would be safer if Legacypac avoids NACs for a while. For the record, an additional problematic NAC not mentioned here was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASHI, closed as delete just a few hours after being relisted, and with a consensus which actually seems to lean more towards keeping the article than towards deleting it . About the deleted articles, I recommend to revert the NAC-delete AfD closures and re-close them as soon as possible, as they need to be deleted following the proper process. Cavarrone 16:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing this one out, I'd missed it. It's particularly inappropriate because Legacypac, given their efforts to remove Neelix's efforts, looks like an involved editor and really shouldn't have acted on it, especially since they read consensus on it so inaccurately. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

At least I'm doing something about the mess - unlike the admin busy trying to smear me here who has a mop and could block Neelix but does nothing. 17:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

• @Legacypac: I noticed earlier that you also have a proposal at Village Pump to change the guideline to allow non-admins to close discussions as delete, which I support generally even though at the moment it has no chance in hell, but I'm not sure whether or not that proposal predates the activity highlighted in this thread, and you should not be doing this. As annoying as Neelix's many thousands of redirects are, there have been a significant number already which have been shown to be valid, as well as a significant number which admins have already speedy deleted. Allowing those discussions to proceed within the current guidelines is the way to handle this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The proposal was made when I found out there is policy against a lowly user closing a discussion as delete. While I admit I made a couple small errors in my first closes, I stand by my judgement as being as good as the average admin and better then some. Legacypac (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, your errors seem to be good-faith misunderstanding of the NAC rules; at least some of the ones that Hullabaloo listed have been re-closed confirming your result. You also seem to have made some technically wrong closures (as in, you didn't use the templates correctly) but that can also be fixed. As friendly advice from a fellow non-admin who's done bad NACs and gotten hell for it in the past, I think you should consider not closing any discussions involving Neelix creations since you're perceived as having an anti-Neelix POV, but otherwise I don't think there's any more to do in this thread. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ya I'm not trying to cross INVOLVED. Also if I had an anti-Neelix bias I would have tried to delete a heck of a lot more of his work I've evaluated (maybe 30000 redirects and 1/2 his articles). Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

.... You actually nominated Neelix for deletion, for crying out loud? An article entirely unrelated to the user but which happens to share his name? That is not an action of the dispassionate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Closed as Speedy Keep - Nominating an article based on an editors name is not only stupid but a waste of time!, LP stop the nonsense otherwise you'll end up blocked for disruptive editing!. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• This may be the incorrect spot to put this, but I believe all of Wikipedia needs a refresher course on the correct rules of AfD's. I've, personally, been stomped on and made fun of numerous times over at AfD while attempting to save or work on fix an AfD which all seems hugely unnecessary. Why it's considered acceptable for deletionist to hound and make fun of editors just because they vote Keep or work on improving an article, I'll never understand. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• These are correct decisions with the exception of NASHI, which shouldn't have been closed because of the closer's involvement with the editor who created the article (particularly the Arbitration case comment and talk page archiving). The Beersheva bus station shooting discussion is too controversial for NAC, but others could stay closed. AFD discussions often have too few participants, even after relisting, and closing discussions where the result is obvious is more likely to shift participation to where it is more needed. Reopening just because a non-administrator closed as "delete" is not productive in these cases, unless contributing something that could change the result; it just adds unnecessary process and leads to discussions such as this. Peter James (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should follow policy as it is. If you wish to advocate for a change to allow for NAC closures that result in deletion, that should be proposed. At the moment, that's not in line with policy. Otherwise, Legacypac needs to stay away from NACs until they have learned more about when it is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy includes "ignore all rules", and others that conflict with each other and can be interpreted in many ways. Even where policy isn't followed doesn't mean it's appropriate to retrace our steps and repeat the same procedure, unless there's the likelihood of a different outcome. I'd agree that Legacypac should avoid closing discussions of pages (or redirects) created by Neelix, but not from NAC entirely, from the evidence presented here. Peter James (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Users EEng and Ricky81682

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

---

People might have noticed that there has been a bit of a war going on regarding longevity related articles for quite a while now. Usually the same people (EEng, CommanderLinx, Canadian_Paul and Ricky81682) nominate articles about validated supercentenarians for deletion and then join up to all vote "Delete" to support the subjects of the articles "not being notable enough" because they believe that "longevity does not warrant notability". This has been going on since at least May this year and has resulted in the deletion of numerous longevity related articles. Furthermore, the anti-supercentenarian crew has suggested that there is no need for age validation and that unvalidated data should be mixed with validated data. The terms "validated and verified" stems from the ages of the people in the articles having been deemed reliable by organisations such as the International Database of Longevity (IDL) or the Gerontology Research Group (GRG). The nominators have suggested that neither the IDL or GRG are reliable enough. There have been votes regarding this and the result was that the GRG's Table E was reliable, but not the GRG's Table EE. EEng and Ricky81682 appear to have forgotten what these terms mean as of late since they keep asking what they actually refer to. They nominated several well-sourced articles about people who were the oldest, or close to, living people on earth for deletion suggesting that they are not "notable enough". Recently they have also started disrespecting the subjects of these articles by saying things such as:

"Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal."(EEng),

""at her death probably the oldest living New Englander" -- WTF, "probably"???" (EEng) and

"Oldest in Louisiana... really? Why not the oldest in Rhode Island? Are we to have fifty simultaneous articles about the oldest person in each US state, and hundreds of others about deceased formerly-oldests? And of course the territories and possessions! What about Wales, Scotland, England? Essex, Surrey, Kent? Bavaria, Tuscany? Each Swiss canton? The states of India? Pedestrian details of an unremarkable, and unremarked, life. NOPAGE. (EEng), "Please don't ask that question. You may jinx us with a flood of people who support that question affirmatively in all seriousness." (Ricky81682), "I've performed the anti-jinx ritual." (EEng).

I propose that a topic ban regarding longevity related articles is given to both of them since they are obviously only out to destruct articles about longevity and show clear disrespect for the deceased by saying things such as the ones mentioned above.

Evidence of recent disrespectful behaviour by EEng:

• "Born-worked-married-died, plus (if you can believe it) "Ray followed, as much as possible, the Boston Red Sox baseball team. After watching baseball games, she often had cake and ice cream. At her 108th birthday celebration, she was greeted with the song "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" and a cake with the Red Sox symbol on it. Ray continued to buy Red Sox merchandise, and commented that she intended to continue doing so." The followup statement that a completely unrelated old person, Fred Hale, "who lived to be 113 years 354 days old, was also a fan of the team", borders on self-parody.", Source
• "Most of the article recounts the Keystone-cops confusion over who's oldest that year or whatever.", Source
• "Three people mentioned in these articles died while I was reading your long post.", Source
• ""The two were the first to build a concrete bottom pool in Cherokee County at that time". Definitely the kind of detail our readers want and need. NOPAGE.", Source
• "Almost half of the article is about the mechanics and trivia of verification, plus the fascinating fact that she and her husband were interviewed together for the 1920 census. Wow! The rest is pedestrian details of everyone's life: born, married, worked, died.", Source
• "Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal", Source
• "Long article packed with pedestrian life details ('One time she had lunch with the Salvation Army. "I like that, they're friendly," Carroll said.').", Source
• "And the fanboys say we don't have open minds!", Source
• "Apparently nonnotable (I could find no sources other than the single one in the article) and her life was utterly pedestrian i.e. there's nothing worth saying about her in the article, other than that she lived a long time.", Source
• "Born, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, died. WP:NOPAGE, and anyway apparently one source.", Source
• ""the fourth-oldest person in the United States and the seventh-oldest in the world for little over a month" -- imagine, a whole month. "Even as her hearing and vision failed, friends said Shull didn't mind visitors and liked to clutch their hands while she talked" -- oh for Pete's sake.", Source
• ""at her death probably the oldest living New Englander" -- WTF, "probably"??? Other than born-married-worked-died, the only thing the article actually says about her is, "She was also a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan, and the staff of the nursing home where she lived reported her delight at the team winning the 2004 World Series." Fascinating." Source

Evidence of recent disrespectful behaviour by Ricky81682:

• "Individual who was the world's second oldest "verified" person (whatever verified means)", Source
• "Individual who was the world's second oldest "verified" person (whatever verified means) is not sufficient for notability.", Source
• "You may jinx us with a flood of people who support that question affirmatively in all seriousness." , Source
• "Person who was the oldest person ever recorded born in Prince Edward Island, the fourth-oldest person ever born in Canada, and ultimately the oldest American ever (and second oldest in the world) is full of cruft about these "titles", not actually notable and per WP:NOPAGE should be deleted.", Source
• "Now we need a succession box for that.", Source
• "It seems like Sanborn was merely a pretender to the claim of being the oldest living person..", Source
• "This kind of name-calling is evidence that a topic ban is necessary." (Regarding me calling him a troll by nominating an unsourced article about an unverified claimant and then withdrawing the nomination based on the premise that there might be sources.), Source

There are several more examples of this kind of behaviour from both users, but this should be enough to give people the general picture. Sincerely, 930310 (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment Having looked at several of the articles they commented on, I see zero GNG justifying a whole article on these long lived by deceased people. So maybe less pointy or less attempts at humor but they make some good points. Appearently writing articles on long living but othewise unremarable people is a thing like writing articles about college girls that play princess dress up for a weekend. Legacypac (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment Interest in human longevity has existed for several millennia (as we can see with Biblical claims such as Methuselah). The book of Guinness World Records began listing the World's Oldest People in its early editions. People that claim long lifespans are well-featured in the media for several centuries. "College girls playing princess dress up for a weekend" is not comparable to this since it's: 1. Relatively new, 2. Likely not featured in any major scientific journals (such as the National Geographic) and 3. Not really remarkable. 930310 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. The afd statistics shows EEng's deletion !votes line up with consensus 84% of the time. Ricky's !votes line up with consensus 67.6% of the time. You show only 8 !votes, and a rate of 62.5%. You haven't made much of a case for topic-banning more active editors who appear better-tuned to consensus than you've been. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment If you read the post you will see why EEng and Ricky have a high line up with consensus. If a group of five or so users "gang up" and start attacking articles, everyone adding their own "Delete"-nomination it is pretty obvious that they are going to have several AfD's that line up with what they vote for. 930310 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment From what I read of this complaint there is no issue here other than the OP does not like sarcastic !votes. I agree on the general principle that age does not confer notability and have !voted that way on AfD's. I have also seen many of these arguments by editors who want to twist our notability criteria to turn Wikipedia into some kind of directory of non-notable old people – and they are dogged in that pursuit. Sooner or later this is going to end up at ArbCom and then those poor folk are going to need to sort through this. Jbh^Talk 16:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's already been to ArbCom which ruled (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#WikiProject World's Oldest People urged, 2011):

4) WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms.

That didn't happen, and so here we are... again. Same shit, different day. EEng (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a relevant thread considering your behaviour on these AfD's. If you hadn't made remarks, such as the ones I quoted above, then this discussion wouldn't have happened. 930310 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not dead, merely dreaming!

Comment So you think it is ok for these users to disrespect the deceased? There is something on Wikipedia called "Etiquette", which clearly says that users should follow The Golden Rule and be polite. Comments such as "Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal" are clearly not polite or respectful. 930310 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

My read is they are disrespecting the inanity of writing "biographies" on people who have done nothing but live a long time. The comments are certainly not what I would call proper but that is not what you are complaining about in your post, not is what you have presented anywhere near bad enough for a topic ban. You are asking for a topic ban on people who disagree with you at AfD – that is not OK. If many people watch AfD for topics they do not feel pass GNG and consistently vote on it that is not "ganging up". Several Wikiprojects have 'Article alerts' to notify people of happenings on articles the project is interested in and then go !vote on them. That is not "ganging up" - that is the emergence of consensus among editors who are interested in the topic. Jbh^Talk 17:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am not asking for a topic ban of them because I disagree with them. I am asking this because their language is inappropriate and that there is clear evidence that they are "ganging up". If they hadn't been ganging up then they wouldn't both have participated in such a high amount of AfD's regarding the same topics. 930310 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Two editors participating in the same types of AFDs is not evidence of them ganging up. There are many reasons they might both show up at the same types of AFDs and most of them are not nefarious. -- GB fan 19:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There are more than two. I mentioned four in the topic and that makes a group. 930310 (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right you did mention four, I forgot about that when I wrote that response. I still do not see any evidence that they are ganging up. Looking at their contributions they are all active in this area just like the editors that are showing up to say keep. Are you "ganging" up with the editors that are all saying keep? -- GB fan 20:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Before I comment, full disclosure that I came here via a comment on my talk page from EEng notifying me that I was involved in this ANI discussion, which is somewhat odd. I've participated in these AfDs recently, though, so I can somewhat see how I could be construed to be involved. Either way, thought it was worth noting. This is a thinly veiled attempt to silence those who oppose the use of Wikipedia as a web host and advertising platform for the GNG, full stop. There is no factual basis to conclude that EEng or Ricky have been "disrespecting the dead" or whatever the actual complaint is here. They are merely questioning the notability of these individuals and the support for facts in these articles. That's obviously a valid goal in an AfD, as those are questions that must be answered to determine whether the article should remain. Longevity is an area where there is a history much longer than my time on site of contention and undue influence from the GNG, which seemingly sends legions of their employees and affiliates to promote articles on non-notable topics. One needs only to read through the longevity wikiproject's talk page and archives to see a history of disregard for policy, guidelines, and consensus. This is an area where discretionary sanctions are active. I recommend in the strongest possible terms that this issue is punted on to the Arbitration Committee. If those involved in longevity discussions truly believe EEng and Ricky are being disruptive, arbitration is the appropriate venue to take that up, as it has been consistently shown that ANI can not effectively handle longevity issues. Fortunately, arbitration is shielded from those with vested interests in promoting these topics, and can yield a fair decision, whatever that is. I would suspect a very swift boomerang if arbitration was actually filed for. ~ Rob^Talk 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment The lines "This is a thinly veiled attempt to silence those who oppose the use of Wikipedia as a web host and advertising platform for the GNG, full stop. There is no factual basis to conclude that EEng or Ricky have been "disrespecting the dead" or whatever the actual complaint is here." are utter nonsense. I am not saying in any way that we should keep every longevity-related article on this Wikipedia. I am saying that the language used by EEng and Ricky is highly disrespectful. It would be good if people that haven't voted in the AfD's could give their opinions regarding this. Right now all the commentators, except me that is, are the people who have voted "Delete" in the AfD's that I am referring to. 930310 (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's because almost all those !voting Keep are part of the SPA "gang" (to use your word) that infests all these AfDs, and they're embarrassed, I'm guessing, to show their faces here. Here's a bunch of these birds-of-a-feather flocking together: WP:Articles for deletion/Anna Eliza Williams. EEng (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I welcome additional comments by outside parties. I see absolutely nothing in Ricky's comments that are anything but perfectly respectful. They're merely dissenting viewpoints. EEng has a habit of injecting humor into his comments, which is hardly an issue for ANI. I don't see any of the humor as particularly objectionable. Again, the unifying thing about all comments presented as "evidence" of disrespect is that they do not support the viewpoint that the GNG should have the final say on who warrants an article. ~ Rob^Talk 19:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything here that would be cause to ban either of the two editors from commenting on AFDs. The comments given as evidence of disrespecting the deceased to me do not show that. The comments are discussing the status of the article not the people. In some cases they do discuss the people but only to point out that the people are not known for anything other than being long lived and that there is not enough to meet our notability guidelines. Most of the articles I looked at show that the people lived long uneventful lives. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not enough that they should have an article. -- GB fan 19:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• EEng, I have some advice for you and others in your situation, which I wrote up as an essay at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • While that certainly is a good bit of advice, it has already been followed here. This is a case where there is significant evidence that an organization is establishing their own "local" consensus on longevity and pushing that despite routinely losing when non-SPAs are introduced into discussions (at the NPOV noticeboard, RS noticeboard, ANI, arbitration, etc. - really every venue that could possibly apply). There is a history of attempting to blatantly disregard consensus in a discussion that doesn't go their way, including in this particularly egregious example. These issues have been brought up at all appropriate venues, including arbitration, but there remains issues. There's really nothing left to do but to implement our notability guidelines AfD by AfD. I'm sure those involved with longevity organizations, and particularly the GNG, will continue to try to uncover a venue where they can either remove those disagreeing with them from the conversation (as is being done here) or get what they want. And what they seem to want is to create a host of unencyclopedic articles that prominently advertise GNG as the only reliable source in this area. ~ Rob^Talk 19:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Bestow Lifetime Achievement Awards on EEng and Ricky for their entertaining prose. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

<bows, acknowledges applause> We'd like to thank the ANI Academy, our fellow members of the anti-supercentenarian crew which 930310 has so cunningly unmasked, and all the ANI "little people" who made this possible. We are unworthy! EEng (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Sour grapes will be served at The Museums all month. And now, to announce our next award … here's Martinevans123! EEng (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• With all due respect, OP, "born, lived, lived, lived...lived, lived, died" is not an example of disrespect, but of accuracy. 99% of the time, notability is pinned on the fact that they died over the age of 100. And while that usually merits mention in the local newspaper, these individuals are the quintessential argument for "newsworthy is not noteworthy"; these people are not something anything approaching a serious encyclopedia should be covering. EEng and Ricky's sarcasm is well placed here. Resolute 19:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, we use not just … sarcasm, but all the tricks: dramatic irony, metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. EEng (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some more help nailing down the "keep every article on someone who only kicks off after they hit an arbitrary age" crowd would be much appreciated, there's a history a mile long of off-wiki collusion among the GRG acolytes and it's enormously tiring to see this trotted out yet again. This looks depressingly similar to the current situation, excepting the different names and the slightly less grandiose and pompous shrieking about expertise. Since having a pulse doesn't seem to be a criterion for passing the notability guidelines, and doesn't look to be one in the near future, until more people step in and do said nailing down this will just keep happening. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure where my comments are objectionable. My main issue is the bizarre argument that some fact are "verified" (namely their age and their "ranking") based entirely on a single organization which claims to be the "truth" about whether or not someone's age is accurate (with no one actually providing a link to the alleged truth), regardless of everything else we have. This is nonsense WP:OR I've been fighting for months here. We finished an RFC stating that "no, we won't put the GRG as a super-reliable source" source and yet there is a strange categorization that exists here where some age claims are treated as "valid" and listed as true (including the longevity tables), some are dumped to longevity claims without further discussions, some are left at Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians or Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases as a storehouse for off-wiki use by this project and some (Vera Wagner at the moment) that even with multiple reliable sources are being wiped out and ignored without discussion. There have been RFCs on getting us to at least only claims that the GRG has approved of. Succession boxes are the current argument at WPT:WOP. I think there's a WP:BOOMERANG issue here: User:930310's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Pereira were not particularly helpful nor productive and starting out by calling it "trolling" is far from civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Plus I suspect EEng is similarly watching Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts like I am. Both of us will review and revise our views if sources do appear and are researching these articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominga Velasco which was kept because of her separate notability). A review of the history will show that the deletions were more commonplace and there before the flood of keep votes have been coming in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• And why did these Keeps start rolling in? Because of the same offwiki canvassing that's been going on in this topic area for literally a decade. Here's an example http://z3 DOT invisionfree DOT com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=6160&st=45 (site in on blacklist so you'll have to manually fix the DOTs) which somehow failed to get secreted behind "The 110 Club's" curtain of secrecy, but there're undoubtedly more recent ones not publicly visible:

"110 Club" canvassing for meatpuppets at AfDs

(Curious member @ Jun 3 2015) The article is being considered for deletion. (Waenceslaus @ Jun 3 2015) … If you could vote for "keep", I would appreciate. (Curious member @ Jun 4 2015) How to vote for keep? (Waenceslaus @ Jun 4 2015) Now it's too late. The article has been deleted. However, if in the future such situation shall occur, enter the the discussion page for an article nominated for deletion just like this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethel Farrell Then press "Edit" in the right upper corner and the try to use some reasonable arguments at the bottom of talk page. (ryoung122 @ Jun 4 2015) It doesn't have to be over. You could take this to deletion review, particularly in light of: 1. More votes to "keep" 2. Spartaz seems to be a partial, not an impartial, arbitrator when it comes to these supercentenarian AFD's.

To see the effect of such canvassing, click here: WP:Articles for deletion/Ethel Farrell.

EEng (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that User:Waenceslaus here (presumably the same person) is topic banned from the subject here and User:Ryoung122 was blocked here by Arbcom and has a significant COI here. This is no accidental meatpuppetry going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• While sarcastic, nothing in the diffs seems to be disrespecting the specific persons of the articles, but simply being critical of the type of puffed-up writing that comes from human interest stories and writing in mainstream extending onto an encyclopedia. They could be less callous in their approach but as others have noted, both EEng and Ricky have appeared to have community consensus behind nominating these for deletion. I would suggest that one should maintain a list article of the oldest living people which these can be salvaged into, which keeps what is sourcable information but avoids getting into minuscule details about a person who is otherwise non-notable for anything else they've done. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a middle ground argued in large part by EEng (based on WP:NOPAGE) resulting in mini-biographies at pages like List of supercentenarians from the United States and List of Japanese supercentenarians. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems completely fair, though I would even argue further that you can leave open a last column on each table for a very short one-two sentence bio. Some of the prose is a bit flowerly ("so and so died and survived by their x children, x grandchildren, etc." is not really helpful for a non-notable person) and if you trim it to more interesting points. For example, just pulling one example "Walter H. Seward" could be summarized as a Harvard grad that practiced law until his 90s. But in any case this is a fair way to keep the info. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I said pretty much that years ago:

if there's something really worth saying about the person which can't be fit into the tables and yet doesn't lend notability for a separate article (though I predict there will be very few cases of this) then the table can #anchorlink to a minibio below. Or where there's a photo available the table can #anchorlink to that too, and the bottom of the article can have a nice gallery of pictures, each caption carrying one or two interesting facts that don't fit in the tables e.g. "Fred Flintstone, a WWI veteran[1] and lifelong stamp collector,[2] hang-gliding at 108".

EEng (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, disrespect for the dead is something only the living worry about. When you're dead, disrespect is going to be the least of your problems. That being said, there is nothing in the diffs that suggest any sort of disrespect for the dead. Merely sardonic humour directed at the ridiculousness of having articles that talk about people who literally were born, lived a much longer time than others, then died. When did Wikipedia turn into a memorial? Blackmane (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not really seeing an issue here. I find must of the comments funny and I offer my kudos to them for keeping their sense of humor considering the all of the tendentiousness the WOP articles bring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware, "disrespecting the dead" is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. I guess the closest thing would be edits which violate the BLP policy for those recently dead people covered by it -so unless someone has evidence of a BLP violation of that sort, I suggest that this discussion be closed. BMK (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen some talk of a boomerang here. In my view, there's genuine poetry if this became not a formal boomerang, but rather a community reaction to what they've learned here. If everyone whose commented here, whether in agreement with the OP or not would go to the WOP wikiproject home page and subscribe to the article alerts, a wider cross-section of the community can weigh in on these AfD's, pro or con. That's got to be better than the status quo.David in DC (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• Indeed David in DC is right. If everyone commenting here would watchlist WP:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People/Article_alerts, and would participate in just one AfD per day, this nonsense would be permanently over. EEng (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Promotional account, repeated copyright violations

No diffs to show as the pages have all been removed, but as seen on this user's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Navyavenulal s/he is repeatedly recreating the same few pages using copyrighted material (generally large copypastas from the subject pages) to create promotional pages for obscure subjects/events, also violating WP:BLP rules in the process. Editor has received multiple warnings.JamesG5 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added information about copyright written for new editors on their talk page. Draft:Pratibha prahlad is heavily promotional but the subject looks notable. Perhaps post to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and see if a collaborator can be found? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a copyvio, I'm trying to figure out from where. The subject is notable though, passing both GNG and ANYBIO. —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The notability comment was referencing another page (Alisha Anand) that the same user has created twice that was deleted on lack of notability, not about the repeatedly recreated Pratibha prahlad page. JamesG5 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I found a couple sentences that could be reworded to avoid semi-close paraphrasing of one of the sources but no outright copyright violations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Kalman613

Beginning with this edit on 04:06, 15 November 2015, User:Kalman613 has repeatedly[212][213][214][215][216] inserted POV and LIBEL into the article on Yeshiva Toras Moshe over my reverts[217][218][219][220]. After my first revert, I engaged him in conversation on the talk page[221] and he agreed to adhere to neutrality[222], but he has continued to insert non-neutral and libelous content from the blog of one of the faculty members who is "dedicated to arguing with Modern Orthodox positions" (Yeshiva University is a Modern Orthodox institution). I believe there is no place for this attack on Yeshiva University in an article about a different yeshiva, and I also question the inclusion of the blog as a reliable source. At this point, we have reached 3RR. I am not reverting his changes, but am asking for a block of the user so the page can be salvaged and the POV and LIBEL removed. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not seeing how this is non-neutral or libelous. It appears to be a dispute over the inclusion of some information. The user claims to be presenting information that is integral to the subject matter and at face value that does not appear to be unreasonable. They seem to be attempting to present the wording neutrally and they are correct in stating that a blog can be a reliable source for referencing the viewpoints or statements of the blog's owner. Reliability of sources and due weight of information can be discussed, but the user appears to be willing to communicate reasonably and compromise, and I don't think it's reasonable to come here asking for a block. "Libel" implies that you are reverting BLP violations and are thus exempt from 3RR yourself, but it doesn't look like you're actually removing libel. I'll protect the page so you two can focus on discussion and seek dispute resolution if necessary and resolve this through consensus but I don't think there's a justification for a block. Swarm ♠ 22:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation. I would just like to make it clear that the material being added is an attack on Yeshiva University by a faculty member of Yeshiva Toras Moshe. To my understanding, this opposition belongs on the Yeshiva University page or the faculty member's page, not on this page. Isn't that right? Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Y'all should be able to come to a consensus one way or another for this thru some form of dispute resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User Adamhunt15 disruptive edits

User Adamhunt15 User talk:Adamhunt15 has engaged in persistent vandalism changing pages relating to the Danish Royal Family, including creating fake members and altering the entries of actual members. He's been warned but persists. JCO312 (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support a ban for Adamhunt15 as this is clearly a case of WP NOTHERE Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• And the above editor is brand-spanking new, with only 5 edits to their name, all to this board. I think it might be socking, perhaps, maybe? BMK (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, though there's no apparent connection between the five issues he or she has had input on.JCO312 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a family album

Nirwanchak. This page is being used for self-promotion in a stealth way. This page was created by a user Safety14. In this page he has uploaded a selfie of himself. File:WP 20151111 16 52 13 Selfie.jpg. This page will never have any page watchers. If i remove the picture from this page, he might undo again and I don't want to watch this page or this user. Better delete this image and warn the user. I was checking the edits of Guddusaurabh and came to this page. He is following the edits of Safety14.

Safety14 is using Wikipedia articles to use it as family album. In this page he has uploaded a picture of his Father as picture of the town. in category page, he has uploaded a picture of his family member.

The main problem is that, he is inserting his family pictures in articles related to villages and towns. Someone should block him from uploading pictures. Uploading personal pictures to commons is not bad. Inserting those picture in unrelated pages is wrong. Galaxy Kid (talk) Galaxy Kid (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Supposedly, the first of the two pictures is in fact about the article subject. However, it appears to be more about the uploader than about the article subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Scientology vandalism

Leah Remini was vandalized by Scientology on 7 November 2015[223] and nobody noticed for nearly two days.[224] This is just one incident, but this is a BLP and we know that this page will be the target of repeated vandalism and POV pushing by Scientology for at least the next few years, so can we please put it under pending changes PC1 protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think people with some familiarity of Scientology conflicts should just watchlist the article and deal with such edits. PC seems like overkill at the moment and we shouldn't do stuff like that preemptively. It's a high profile article so it shouldn't be difficult to keep enough eyes on it. I'm surprised that one slipped through for 2 days. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a bad call to take action before there's really been any issue.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ISIS threat on ClueBot NG's talk page

I am posting here about an edit claiming to be from ISIS on ClueBot NG's talk page. The edit can be found on the following link :

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons&diff=prev&oldid=690948082

The IP previous edit was derogatory about the USA. I am aware that this is probably an IP just making false claims, however I've erred on the side of caution and emailed the emergency team in case the authorities need to be notified.

I've not rev del'd anything in case any outside bodies need to see the edit.

I'm posting here because I'm currently on holiday and may not be able to log on every day. I'd feel better if other editors kept an eye on this IP as well. 5 albert square (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Dude. Do you think the IP really is ISIS? While I see the need of notifying the authorities, please don't blow things out of proportion.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I started and therefore watch some ISIL related pages. I regularly see pro-ISIL vandal edits, often geolocated to the Middle East and Pakistan. I always revert on article and tend to revert the worst ones on talk pages Legacypac (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope but I'm also aware that Wikipedia policy states that I can't be judge, jury and executioner. 5 albert square (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This IP geolocates to Kingston, New York. BMK (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Likely a Syrian refugee than, or not... [225] Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to erring on the side of caution. However, I would not worry about rev-deling. Go ahead and do it. I guarantee that if the authorities need to see the deleted material, it will be easy to arrange to get it to them (and for the paranoid, they probably already have it)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access needs removal

Resolved

The user Davin1134 may need their user talk page access removed; they are already indef blocked but are editing their user talk page to call admin "dumb" and "morons". 331dot (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Urquhartnite

This user has made a number of disruptive page moves and move proposals today. In the related discussions it is personally abusing other editors. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but I am not going to raise to your bait ... you have been more or less pointlessly hectoring or reverting my edits all day, today! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Which of the reverts do you think was "pointless"? Was it the one where you deleted a whole article without any discussion whatsoever? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So?! Where are the citations for the article?! "Original research" is also alright, is it?! Anyway, I was just about to go into nominating the page for dismembering, or, merging, with different articles, when all this kicked off! Anyway, I am a Yorkshireman (and I am also disabled), and I bloody tell it like it is! What do you take me for, a Scottish Calvinist minister?! Phew! Anyway, ta-ra! Still not raising to it! I am sure you are just trying to flirt with me, somehow! Bring out the mistletoes then, I say! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)