Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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.

---

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

Trolling again from Hengistmate

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

Plasticine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• [1]
• [2]

I recently fixed a minor spelling in Plasticine from fuse to fuze. This is a specialist term in military history. The correct spelling is somewhat contentious (see long past discussions at Talk:Fuze and related articles) as the z spelling is specific to that field and widely accepted within that field. It is usually seen as the correct spelling, "fuse" being either incorrect or at very least confusable with fuse (electrical), and fuze is never seen as incorrect for these devices. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue.

Hengistmate rapidly reverted my correction. When I restored it he reverted it again in minutes, removing the relevant link too (as [[Fuze|fuse]] piping "fuse" to link to "fuze" was presumably beyond even his chutzpah).

With any other editor, I would have taken pains to explain the significance of the spelling, with reference to the past Talk: discussions, and the fact that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for use with this term. However this is Hengistmate – a self-declared expert in military matters (see User talk:Hengistmate) who is certainly already familiar with the subtleties of this issue. An editor with whom I've also had extensive past problems, including his blocking for repeated socking: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive.

This is not edit-warring. This is not a content dispute. This, given the editor involved and their past history, is simple deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have unwittingly blundered into this content dispute having made (what I believed to be) a legitimate revert. Judging from the discussion currently taking place at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse there does appear to be a valid and proper discussion over the spelling of fuse/fuze. Without commenting here on who is right or who is wrong, on the basis that there is an ongoing discussion, I would suggest that this ANI be closed as no further action. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC

• Re-opening this. Thanks to Ed Johnston for closing this (below), but the issue has kicked off again.

result=No action needed. Please continue to discuss at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse. Hengistmate has not edited the article since 31 December. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC) }}

This issue was raised on 30 December and was ignored for some time. An independent editor, 86.145.215.191, restore the fuze spelling, which was again reverted by Hengistmate. They took no part in the discussion at Talk:Plasticine, nor responded to the ANI issue here. They were active, they continued to edit other articles.

Minutes after Ed closed this, Hengistmate again reverted and even inserted an inappropriate wl to the DAB page at fuse.

This is an editor who knows the technical background to this issue, that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for the major articles, and who has a track record of blocked repeated socking simply to troll me. For them to ignore an issue for the duration of their exposure at an ANI posting, but then dive straight back in within minutes of that going away - especially with an edit so simply unconstructive as to replace a correct link with a DAB link (whatever the spelling issue) - this strikes me as sheer BF editing.

Those interested are invited to read the discussion at Talk:Plasticine - but this is still here as a behavioural issue about one editor, not a content matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• De-archiving this. I have tried to help out with the content dispute, and it has become clear during extensive discussion that there is an issue with the conduct of the OP.

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has misrepresented sources [3] [4] [5], and repeatedly made the same uncited edit [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].

As well as the false accusation of "trolling" made above, he has now issued false warnings for disruption [13] [14]. As advised in WP:DE and WP:HA, I am reporting this here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC); edited 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A little reminder, you're required to notify other editors if you raise them at ANI. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, by bringing this back here User:Burninthruthesky is ignoring established consensus and is trying to turn a content dispute into an AN/I matter simply because he dislikes said consensus.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

142.105.159.60 has also inserted this WP:UNSOURCED change, [15] claiming there is consensus for it. Suggest Boomerang served in the form of a warning. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC); edited 08:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC); edited 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just trolling.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang

Andy Dingley's personal attacks against Hengistmate are continuing, [16] and are now being extended [17] as well to Ymblanter after they kindly protected the article (and who apparently speaks seven languages). This is unacceptable, please block this user. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Let us also point out that Hengistmate vandalized [18] the article on artillery fuzes in an effort to push their views on the matter. No one is innocent here, you least of all.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I edited the article so that it reflects the sources - the "real" O.E.D., as recommended by A. Dingley. Please discuss this calmly, without attacking other "editors". Plenty are already doing that. Hengistmate (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe that this issue is still rumbling on after several months.

I'm also surprised that Andy Dingly and several others contributing to the edit war and discussion are not aware that when an admin protects an article, they are not endorsing the version of the article so protected but are only forcing discussion on the talk page (of which, in this case, there is no shortage!). If an admin changed the spelling and then protected the article - that would be an abuse of admin privileges (protecting an article to enforce his prefered version, though I have seen it done in a case where the admin was directly involved in the edit war - very naughty). 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving along: Request closure of his thread as a content dispute

The spelling of "fuze/fuse" is a content dispute. The content dispute needs to be worked out with some form of WP:DR, not an ANI discussion. If you need a suggestion of which WP:DR to use, I suggest WP:RfC. If there are any repeated or longterm behavioral issues that have not been able to be worked out via collegial discussions or WP:ANEW, I don't see them presented here by either side of the issue. All I see is a clear content dispute and edit-warring. If there are further sockpuppet allegations to make, make them at WP:SPI. Can we close this now with no action? Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Both sides seem to agree that WP:This is not a content dispute. The actual content dispute is trivial – there are sources that support both spellings. Andy Dingley admits [19] that one of them is military WP:JARGON, but chooses to ignore what the MOS has to say on the issue and keeps rehashing his view that one of them is "wrong", [20] [21] [22] [23] despite the fact the spelling he dislikes is supported by the OED. I expect the dispute would have been settled before I got involved if he were able to satisfy WP:Verifiability with his view. The failure to do so is WP:Disruptive. He says himself [24] that we don't reword cited text to follow our own POV, yet there are 7 diffs above showing him doing just that. Furthermore, he started this discussion with his baseless accusation that his opponent is "trolling". Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "both sides" (and that includes you, on one of the "sides") want to characterize this as, it is a simple content dispute and edit war. Not one single effort at WP:DR has been made. The full protection of the article is going to end in 10 hours, at which time the tiresome edit-warring will resume. I would like to request that this thread be closed and the disputants advised to handle it via WP:DR. The closing admin may or may not want to indefinitely full-protect the article until such time as some form of WP:DR has been implemented and completed. In the absence of that, edit-warring should be dealt with at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

From DR, this is the forum for resolving a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. WP:Disruption is a behavioural guideline and WP:Edit Warring and WP:No personal attacks are conduct policies. It's clear to me this is a long-term behavioural issue, so unfortunately I'm not surprised by this user's block log. The content dispute has been exhaustively discussed at Talk:Plasticine, but not only there. The last diff above is five years old, and relates to the same argument [25] suggesting the full OED (which not everyone can easily check) somehow contradicts other English dictionaries, including those from the same pubilsher. Protection of Plasticine has not put a stop to this [26]. I fear that closing this thread with no action will result in more of the same. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"[E]xhaustively discussed" is not WP:DR. That's why nothing has been resolved; not a single form of WP:DR has been utlized, and the only way to resolve it is through WP:DR. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The return of Hengistmate

I expanded this, with an additional source (Hogben) and with a corrected quote from Jappy. On a single page, Jappy uses the "fuze" spelling 11 times.

As anticipated, Hengistmate then promptly edited the page, "Have corrected spelling of fuse to reflect sources." He deliberately broke the direct quotes given (scans are available) to yet again, push his agenda of the "fuse" spelling. Now whatever the virtues of the two spellings in general, in this case we have verbatim quotes from two sources about the same very specific item, using the fuze spelling and using it widely throughout two books.

This is simple trolling. Hengistmate has a long history over some years of such attacks against me and has been blocked in the past for his socking in doing so. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Both edits above are inappropriate. There is no clear consensus for changing the spelling, and DAB links are not generally correct. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

We work according to the sources. Both sources here very clearly use "fuze". Why are you advocating going against these sources? Your own edit mis-represented Jappy as a source for "fuse" by quoting a bit of random blurb from the Amazon website, in direct contradiction of what the book actually uses. Why would you do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The Jappy synopsis displayed by several booksellers led me to believe the original (August) edit was already supported. Regardless of sourcing (there are sources supporting both), I still believe there is a valid question over use of either the technical spelling or the dictionary spelling. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No one cares what you "believe". We work here by what WP:RS authors (Hudson, Hogben, Jappy) have stated in reliable media. They have all widely used "fuze" for this context. If you can find any comparable sources showing "Y fuse" in relation to German air-dropped bomb fuzes of WWII, then please show them.

A carelessly quoted publisher blurb on the Amazon website is not RS and is not evidence to contradict the very book it is describing. Jappy uses the term dozens of times in the pages in relation to this issue, always as "fuze".

I see that you have changed your past false statement that the OED gives "fuze" as an 18th century variant spelling for powder train fuses and you now give it as the spelling for the sophisticated mechanical fuzes introduced from the 19th century. Although you're still missing the point that this was the introduction then of mechanical fuzes, not merely a variant for powder train fuses.

There is a broad issue, hammered out long ago at Talk:Fuze, Talk:Contact fuze and Talk:Fuse (explosives): fuze is correct for devices of this type. Even that though is over-ridden here by the simple fact that the RS describing this specific use and the fairly brief and narrow events in question were all described using "fuze", for which we should then follow suit. Even if this had been some WWI / WWII difference, or an ENGVAR issue, we would favour "fuze" here because that's what the RS for this event all use. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No one cares what you "believe". You've made it clear that you don't, but under policy, all editors' valid concerns about policy should be taken into consideration. Once again, you are pushing your interpretation of the OED that is contradicted by other Oxford dictionaries. Sources do not "all" use 'fuze'. See [27] and [28]. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if your reading of the OED entry for "fuse" is that it only applies to powder-train fuses, [29] how can you claim "The OED supports fuze" [30]? You can't have it both ways. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the above commentary on this diff is a complete misrepresentation of my edit, and the OED. The entry for "fuse, n.2" says "Forms: Also 17 feuze, 18 fuze." The key to these abbreviations is freely available here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I note that Hengistmate included some quotes from references in his edit which actually supported the 'fuze' spelling, but then followed the words 'fuze' in each case with '(sic)' indicating that he believes the author used the wrong spelling. This must qualify as editing while ignoring what the references say because you think you know better. If that is not trolling, and clearly edit warring to edit against the references that he himself provided, then I don't know what is. If we all edited what we believed to be a corrected version of any references used to support articles, Wikipedia would soon be in a mess. Hengistmate should be blocked for pure trolling. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

* Proposal *

Hengistmate (talk · contribs · logs) is blocked from editing Wikipedia for clear trolling on the grounds that he uses three sources to support his edit, but deliberately misquotes all three to support his trolling. Further, he marks the quotes from the sources claiming that the respected authors of all three works do not know their craft.

86.153.133.193 (talk)

• Oppose. This is a content dispute and edit war. Deal with it via WP:DR, WP:ANEW, and WP:RFPP. Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's far from a content dispute - have you read the talk: page? (and Glrx's rather extensive addition of sources today). When one editor simply changes refs he doesn't like to their inverse, then that's behavioural. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You've provided no diffs as evidence of that statement. There is more than one editor on each side of the opinion divide. It's a content dispute; settle it as one. The fact that many of the disputants are using the content dispute to cast aspersions or seemingly settle or revive old scores simply compounds and prolongs the content dispute, which could have been resolved days ago if WP:DR were used. Bringing these disputes to ANI just wastes everyone's time and energy and compounds the problem further. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I did provide a diff, but since you missed it, I will repeat it diff.

Note also that I have ammended the proposal above, though I have not changed the intent of the proposal, but only the supporting text to more accurately reflect the extent of the trolling. It was inaccurate before because it suggested he was deliberately claiming that one source was wrong, when in fact it was three sources. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

An IP in London later changed all those spellings in the sources [31]. There's so much nonsense going on that the only way to resolve any of it is with WP:DR, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"provided no diffs"? They were given on the talk: page and you were pointed to them. If you still need some examples, try these: [32] [33] [34] Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, for a variety of reasons. I'm not really impressed with the parties to this dispute broadly, nor with how they have turned the most trivial of content distinctions into grounds for a contest of wills which obviously speaks a lot more to the personalities involved than to the needs of the project. I'm not sure I agree with Softlavender that there are absolutely no behavioural issues at root here, but I do agree that this ought to be resolved as a content issue (using RfC or other community mechanisms to generate more discussion and a clearer consensus as necessary)--and, to the extent that the involved editors have failed to approach this issue in an appropriately mature and productive manner, there is more than enough blame to go around. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Additional information, Despite this ANI, Hengistmate is continuing his trolling. With this edit, Hengistmate changes the spelling back to 'fuse' but also changes the spelling within the quoted fragments of the sources to make it appear that his spelling is sourced, when fact the sources are no longer what they actually say. Although the edit was carried out by an alternate IP address account, it is clear that it is Hengistmate as he deletes the entire section using his real account just nine minutes later claiming that the source does not state what it actually does state. An SPI case has been raised. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is desperate bullshit. Why would I even bother to do that? I've been quite happily removing the false claims about consensus and the mendacious allegations of trolling using my own username. And even if I did, then I have removed my own alleged sockpuppetry along with the unreliable source, Jappy, so it isn't on Wikipedia. If I wanted to fake a supporting view (and it does go on), I'd put it up and leave it there, not delete it. What would that achieve, if nobody sees it? On which topic, I could observe that the Dingleyan tone and detail of the above might suggest some connection between my accusers, but I'm sure that Dingley, 86.153.133.193, and another anonymous user whose number I can't remember are entirely independent and have no knowledge of each other whatsoever. That's certainly what I told my nephew, who will soon be celebrating his ninth birthday. Hengistmate (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No you deliberately socked as per your rtack record shows. You just came with an alternate angle nine minutes later as the edit summary clearly showed. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think am not convinced you've been socking here. However can you explain your last edit, that of blanking both sources entirely? You know that this would be a contentious edit, there is no reason at all to discard these two sources and you gave none. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone towards the civil; it is expected on this project and will serve you better (especially in this space) no matter what you think about the accusations being made against you. I have already said above that, based on the details presented so far, it looks as if there is plenty of blame to go around in this dispute, which has clearly grown personal and petty in nature amongst at least some parties on each side of the content dispute. But when a party responds with comments as laden with hostility as your last post, it becomes increasingly difficult to hold to the notion that the cause of acrimony is all that evenly disputed. Exuding vitriol and passive-aggressive counter-accusations will not improve your standing here. If the suggestions of socking is baseless, the SPI will reflect that, so you gain nothing by responding and suggesting that your "opponents" are the "real socks" unless you actually believe that and have evidence to provide to support the assertion. Bear in mind that the request to level a sanction against you has been opposed so far because this looks like a content dispute to most of us, not a behavioural situation. But blatant incivility could turn that impression around quite fast. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• support Even after this was raised, Hengistmate's editing has been that of deliberately abusing sources against the consensus of others in order to push a personal agenda. I make no comment on whether he has been socking again. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• support per Andy.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeated abuse of editing privilege by User:Roman Spinner

Copied over from WP:AN. Blackmane (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Roman Spinner has continually and knowingly violated a well-established consensus over a multi-year period, while (politely) dismissing separate complaints by no less than five editors, regarding hundreds of edits.

The relevant consensus for disambiguation pages, from MOS:DABENTRY: "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." User:Roman Spinner has regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information, and has been repeatedly warned to stop. User:Roman Spinner has declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus, and has shown no willingness to change the behavior.

A partial history:

• January 2008: discussion (initiated by @Jwy:)
• April 2012: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:)
• December 2012: discussion (initiated by @Ubcule:)
• April 2014: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:)
• June 2015: discussion (initiated by @Midas02:)
• February 2016: discussion (initiated by User:Swpb)

Some edit diffs: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

These discussions and diffs represent a small sample, not the full record, of the behavior. User:Roman Spinner has also receieved many complaints about unsupported and incomplete page moves, and has dismissed these as well; however, these are not a focus of the current complaint.

I am seeking a formal censure of User:Roman Spinner, making it clear that this behavior will stop. If the behavior continues, I seek a probationary ban, then a permanent ban, on all edits by User:Roman Spinner to disambiguation pages. —swpb^T 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed I didn't start this discussion myself years ago, but I hate confrontation of any sort. I have contacted Roman on numerous occasions and got sugar-coated responses which basically say that he knows, but he feels it is better this way and somehow fits in the spirit though not the letter of the guidelines. The spirit is to keep things brief, concise and easily readable, which he doesn't keep to. A case in point is [35]. You can see from the entries how far it is from MOS:DABENTRY. With many dabs like this, Roman created them or edited them to be like that, I then correct them. Roman would then copy his version to a page such as that linked, where he would keep copies of all his preferred versions. I've no idea what the purpose of this may be, but I felt like they were likely to be re-added at a future date, as some of them were, through not realising he had done the same thing before on that page or deliberately. He would also sometimes copy his version onto the Talk page of the dab, so it was still there in some form. I felt this was trying to bully his version on. I monitor the dab page changes, and so undo the majority of Roman's edits, which he must know, but this has been eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs, as it's frustrating to see someone ignoring consensus. I have told him that he could start a discussion about the guidelines at the Wikiproject if he feels they need amending - I have said this dozens of times in edit summaries and messages - but he doesn't do it. I have told him how unfair it is to ignore consensus over the years and how it puts editors off editing, but no changes. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

My opinion as one of the people mentioned above, but primarily as an outsider looking in:-

Even though I only tend to fix dab page issues when I come across them, I find dealing with well-intentioned but misguided dab bloating from inexperienced editors frustrating. In their case, it's forgiveable, so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and educate them.

I think I'd assumed then that Roman was in the same boat and I hadn't noticed (a) he'd been warned several times before and (b) been on Wikipedia for many years already! I'd have been *much* less impressed if I'd known that.

@Boleyn:; Snap. I saw that same discussion before you added your reply and had already intended saying something very similar.

""I remained within the spirit, if not strictly the letter of the guideline". Honestly?! If anything it sounds like it's the other way round, with him trying to rationalise edits way longer than necessary by explaining how they're within (or near) various technical limits. The "spirit" is that dab pages are *meant* to be concise!

Ditto the way that he responded to you and others; pleasant, polite, respectful and acknowledging their input or opinion... while also not actually responding to or addressing the reason that issue was raised!

Truth be told, I think that what he believes what he's doing is right- for whatever reason. Unfortunately, that *is* the problem because if after eight-plus years(!!!) he's still responding with the same apparent mixture of rationalisation, cognitive dissonance and managing to politely avoid the issue, then it's clearly an issue that goes beyond rational discussion with him.

If he's still doing this to countless pages despite knowing that his changes are going to be reverted, that suggests some sort of obsessiveness. However, it's really not our place to get involved with personal matters like that.

Realistically, then, that leaves us with only two options; (i) let things continue as they are or (ii) accept that- regardless of whether it's done in what he sees as good faith- Roman's editing in this area is a problem, and the only way of drawing a line (which, let's face it, probably should have been drawn before now) is likely to be some form of restriction or sanction.

If this seems harsh, then please bear in mind it's also unfair to editors like Boleyn and many others to have to waste their time repeatedly cleaning up this sort of unhelpful and utterly counter-produtive bloat.

Ubcule (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

1) It is always a pleasure, regardless of circumstances, to engage in exchanges of ideas with user:swpb and User:Boleyn, two longtime contributors whose dedication to this extraordinary project is most admirable. Wikipedia would be a humbler place without their numerous valuable contributions. In truth, none of us veteran editors would dedicate such considerable portions of our lives to such a task if we were not convinced that our work had a convincing potential to improve lives by promoting and advancing the expansion of knowledge and scholarship.

2) I also welcome the additional participation of User:Ubcule whose original comment on my talk page in December 2012 appeared to be a gentle reminder, rather than a complaint, as did the postings of User:Jwy in January 2008 and User:Midas02 in June 2015. In fact, only the later postings by User:Boleyn and the current postings by user:swpb, who initially communicated with me five days ago, on February 9, appear to rise to the level of complaints. While I would not presume to advise a user of such high intellect as swpb as to the most profitable dedication of time, it still seems regrettable that swpb instead chose to devote the last five days (February 9–14) to a search of my disambiguation edits over the past 10 years, in an apparent attempt to find sufficient evidence for submitting these accusations.

3) As to the heart of the complaint, that I "regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information", my responses have always made clear that none of my descriptions have come close to exceeding a single line of text [I edit on a 27-inch iMac, using a 16x9 screen with standard fonts at 100% (normal) size]. As I explained to Boleyn in April 2012, "I realize many other screens employ various ranges of sizing and formatting, but such unavoidable discrepancies would, of course, be evident in the context of all entries under any circumstances." I am a bit puzzled, though, over swpb's above reference to "unhelpful information" — would information of the same length but phrased in a different manner or consisting of different content be more "helpful", or is any information of such length "unhelpful"? In the latter case would it not be more precise to state "excessive", rather than "unhelpful" information?. In fact, most of my descriptions, such as one of the most recent ones here, occupy at most half, but usually only a third of a line of text [on my 16x9 screen], thus turning the phrase "extremely long descriptions" into quite an exaggeration.

4) Another accusation/complaint appears to be that I have "declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus". Again, as I have already explained, I do not feel that there is any need to change the consensus, since I agree that the descriptions should be short and also feel that one-fourth, one-third or even half a line of text, which is the usual length of my descriptions, fulfills the definition of "short". However, if a discussion were to be initiated with the aim of elucidating the term "short" by specifying the acceptable number of characters and spaces permitted as explanatory text, I would support such an emendation and adhere to such future consensus to an exact degree.

5) I am gratified that swpb provided the various links to my edits, since those confirm that as valuable an asset as swpb has been to other areas of Wikipedia, consistency and attention to detail on disambiguation pages is not swpb's strong suit. Here are a few examples: In editing Thunder Mountain dab, swpb deleted all information for Thunder Mountain (British Columbia), leaving only the redlink, plus the unhelpful word "Canada". Boleyn almost immediately added the barely more helpful blue link, List of mountains of Canada, on which Thunder Mountain (British Columbia) exists, but only as a redlink, without any elucidation. The original link, however, which had been there since February 2014, was to Tsitsutl Peak, which does contain some specific information about the mountain. That link was ignored by both swpb and Boleyn even though it was easily accessible via my previous edit. Swpb also reduced the two films on the page to just the basic link, removing all information, without even leaving at least two words, "American western". On other dab pages, however, swpb, who is frugal with dab page verbiage, adds unnecessary duplication: at Death Trip dab, Death Trip (2015 film), top-grossing Chinese thriller, becomes Death Trip (2015 film), Chinese film [we already know it's a film, why not leave the genre instead?]. At Arizona Days dab, Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent western, becomes Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent film [again, we know it's a film]. At Another Dawn dab, Another Dawn (1937 film), American military love triangle, becomes Another Dawn (1937 film), American film and Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican political thriller, becomes Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican film [are these redundancies and genre removals supposed to help users?]

6) Per mention by User:Boleyn, I also "hate confrontation of any sort". Since Boleyn has been such a valuable asset to Wikipedia, I also did not wish to issue any complaints, but as for "eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs", it should be noted that Boleyn has been simply reverting my disambiguation page edits using WP:Twinkle [which hardly takes any time at all], without even bothering to peruse my edits for additions, deletions or error corrections. The very link presented by Boleyn above, displayed here as Boleyn's reversal of my edit is good example. If anyone wonders why the Michael Ames dab page has two entries, while my version of it had six entries, it is because Boleyn reversed it without [presumably] even looking at it or evaluating my four additions. Another example is here. Again, if anyone wonders why the Peter Godfrey dab page has four entries, while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (a pointless addition by Boleyn [to "See also"] of "intitle" which displays "All pages with titles containing Peter Godfrey" comes to nothing since the missing names are not even there). Still another example is here. Once again, if anyone wonders why the Kevin McCarthy dab page has nine entries (not counting [the problematic] Kevin MacArthur, added by swpb), while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (my additions, such as name changes, birth years and nationalities were also not re-incorporated). There are numerous other such examples which I will submit in subsequent installments of this discussion, if/when it continues.

7) Because I value Boleyn's work, having to continue with this line is regrettable but, since Boleyn mentioned that I put my versions on disambiguation talk pages, it should be added that Boleyn has been deleting all such talk page additions as vandalism, although most of Boleyn's edit summaries (when performing those deletions) state that the talk page is the wrong venue. Since talk pages are intended for suggesting improvements, I contend that each respective disambiguation talk is exactly the correct venue for such an alternative dab page, each of which is inserted with its own explanatory notes, specifically focused upon that exact page. Thus, other members of the Disambiguation Project can weigh in on the relative merits and shortcomings of such a proposed page. However, almost all of them have been deleted by Boleyn, such as here, where Boleyn's edit summary calls it "vandalism". As a last item here [for now] I must turn to Boleyn's use of "how it puts editors off editing". The notion that I am driving away editors because my dab page entries may be considered (by some editors) a trifle too long is difficult to comprehend, although I suspect that Boleyn is applying this personally. However, since I have not been driven away by Boleyn's continuing deletion of my dab edits (and dab talk pages), then such a burden of guilt cannot be placed on my shoulders. In fact, since Boleyn has been submitting for deletion (justifiably or not) the work of various new editors, the initial accusation (for lack of a more pleasant term) is difficult to sustain.

8) Finally, I could not conclude this phase of arguments [much more to come, if need be] without congratulating User:Ubcule for a highly skilled use of psychoanalytic parody. Wikipedia is fortunate to have a contributor with a such a keenly honed sense of humor. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Roman, I started completing reverting your edits when you wrote that if I felt they were wrong, I could always revert them. The majority I re-edit rather than revert. It is not difficult to sustain that you put editors off editing dabs - I'm one of the most prolific editors of dabs and I'm thoroughly put off because it's wasting my time. If you are unable to understand how your edits don't meet the consensus, then I can't help you - and I don't think you should be allowed to continue editing dabs. Talk pages are not a place to put an alternative version of the dab on, and you did this on dozens of dabs. Again, your sugar-coated response is an attempt to divert from the real issue. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: As noted above, my 2012 comment had assumed you were a helpful-but-misguided newbie and wasn't meant as a "reminder" to someone who had been an editor on Wikipedia for around six years by that point.

To use that as an example, however, I don't understand what you feel this edit makes clear that the previous version didn't. Of course it adds (much) more information, but none of that is realistically necessary for anyone to differentiate the four and find the article they're looking for.

It would very helpful to us for you to clearly explain your reasoning behind that specific edit (i.e. how it represents an improvement) with respect to the guidelines- it's a very typical example, and might at least make the rationale for your style clear. Because, with respect, that reasoning isn't at all obvious at present.

Speaking as an end-user, I find with your versions I'm having to pointlessly *read through* material extraneous to the purpose of the dab page, less able to see the forest for the trees than the regular versions.

You complain about your changes to the Kevin McCarthy dab page being reverted, but while your version had more entries, it also added a lot of bloat which (again) was not necessary to the purpose of the page.

Beyond a certain point, if someone is repeatedly combining changes/additions which may be considered problematic with (arguably) useful additional material in the same edit, it's open to question how much onus is on others to spend their time sorting these out, leaving behind only the good aspects. If it happens on a regular basis, I can understand why Boleyn might feel entitled to revert the whole thing since- on balance- the negative aspects of the bloat introduced outweighed any improvement.

As I've already commented, you claim to be acting within the spirit if not always the letter of the guidelines, but your argument that your titles technically fit within a single line on your monitor sounds like a technical justification that goes against the general spirit of "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." Which part of the guidelines is this apparent one-screen-line limit- or as you seem to see it, target- based on anyway?

Ubcule (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ubcule: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my disambiguation page editing philosophy as it is reflected in the That's My Boy dab page which was the subject of your posting to my talk page on Christmas Day 2012. Never once did I edit any dab page simply to expand the descriptions --- the reason had always been to add one or more entries, correct one or more mistakes or to add vital dates/release dates, nationalities and/or professions. In the same style as my 15-point comparison between the competing versions at Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page, this comparison will be at Talk:That's My Boy#Three versions of the That's My Boy disambiguation page. Also, below, I am responding to your query regarding the one-line descriptive limit. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: You may personally see your additions as "vital"; however, in my full response at that same talk page, I hopefully make clear- using that specific example- why your additions are extraneous and unhelpful as far as dab pages are concerned. Ubcule (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ubcule: A brief clarification seems to be needed here. As Wikipedians who attend to biographical entries on a more-or-less daily basis, we have no need to parse the meaning of the familiar expression "vital dates". Needless to say I made no claim that any other portion of each of my descriptions was "vital" per se, although I do feel that biographical entries should at least specify nationality and profession. As for Talk:That's My Boy#Three versions of the That's My Boy disambiguation page, my response to your comments is on that page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words about me. But, @Roman Spinner:, STOP over-loading DAB pages. I am not an active DAB page updater as I used to be. Had I seen you continued that behavior I would have made it more clear I was complaining rather than suggesting. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Can I open an RFC on this?

Side issue; would it be appropriate to place a "Requests for Comment" to get more input into this discussion?

The only reason I ask is that- while the issues raised are perfectly legitimate and this discussion *should* be taking place- it already seems to be moving away from the type of discussion that belongs on the Administrators' Noticeboard page, and I don't know if it's appropriate to direct even more people here for a wide-ranging, general-input discussion involving non-admin users. Ubcule (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a WP:RFC/U. I believe that Wikipedia has discontinued that type of Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with thes things, but I can't think of a better place than here. If others agreed with Roman and there were genuine disagreements as to what "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link" meant then RfC might be best. But this seems to be a case of a long-term editor refusing to listen to other editors or follow the agreed guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't deal with content issues here, only user conduct. If you want to discuss Roman Spinner's conduct, this is the place. For example, you could propose a topic ban or an interaction ban, or some other specific remedy, and we'll discuss it. If you want to talk about content or get consensus on how much text should be on the dab pages, you should probably start an RFC at WT:D. Katie^talk 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to add it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted? I can't see any other place where it would be appropriate, to be honest, as the other extant RFCs seem to be policy and/or subject-area focussed, which (going by KrakatoaKatie's comment) isn't appropriate here. Ubcule (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

To editors KrakatoaKatie, Ubcule and Boleyn: I opened this to address conduct specifically, not content. The example edits point to a pattern of behavior, not a dispute over particular content, so this, not RfC, seems to be the right venue. If a remedy is to be discussed, it should be a "topic" ban on editing dab pages; I leave it to the admins to determine if such a ban is warranted now, or only in the event the behavior continues. —swpb^T 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Swpb: So you're proposing that Roman Spinner be banned from editing disambiguation pages - is that correct? If so, start that discussion under a level 3 heading, like the one for this subsection. (There are myriad examples of how to do this in the AN archives.) You brought up the issue, so you need to propose the solution you have in mind. Katie^talk 23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion with the content experts at WT:MOSDAB first to clearly establish how the edits match consensus, then here if necessary? (apologies for going off topic above) --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think the only issue is conduct, content issue is clear. I'm not sure there's anything to be gained therefore by starting a discussion elsewhere, I think we have identified the problem and need a solution. I would propose that Roman is banned from editing disambiguation pages. I see no sign of any understanding from him, and he has not changed one bit after the numerous warnings he has received, not just on his talk page but on the talk pages of individual dabs. The level of obsession shown, by actions such as copying and pasting his preferred version onto the dab talk page, then into his userspace, and the fact that this has gone on for years, makes me think this is necessary. Roman can continue to edit productively in many other areas of Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly a conduct issue; the content (what is needed on DAB pages) is very clear and has been stable for a long time. I am merely an occasional editor of DAB pages and, while i wouldn't necessarily agree that every edit of Roman Spinner's to them is unhelpful, nor even every one linked above as examples, sufficient are that the conduct is not really acceptable from a long-term editor. I would be delighted if, in a very short time, Roman Spinner sees the error of his conduct and is willing to abide by community standards, which are very clear. Until that happens, i fear a ban is necessary. cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

To keep it as short & simple as possible, i propose that Roman Spinner be banned from editing disambiguation pages. cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that a topic ban from disambiguation pages seems necessary here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a number of the diffs presented are, although not ideal, substantially better than what they replaced. This is an iterative process. People can edit his versions to make them shorter, however they should take into account additions of other appropriate pages and factual corrections. Reversion of his edits just because he made them looks a lot like vandalism or at least pointy behavior to me. Unless evidence is proposed of Roman Spinner edit warring over subsequent trimming, I don't see that a ban is necessary.--Jahaza (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You may find these sorts of edits to be improvements, but consensus firmly disagrees with you. But more importantly, if Roman or anyone else wants to challenge that consensus, they should do so at WT:MOSDAB, not by simply ignoring the consensus and every warning to follow it over a years-long period. That behavior is inexcusable, no matter what your opinion is on the consensus itself. —swpb^T 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jahaza: I strongly disagree that the modified versions were (on balance) better than what they replaced. As I noted elsewhere, there *were* aspects (e.g. additional entries) that if they could be taken in isolation were probably improvements. Unfortunately, those were lumped together with the counter-productive (and counter-consensus) bloat which significantly detracts from the agreed aims of a dab page. The fact that someone *could* in theory do the tedious work of picking apart the improvements from the bloat doesn't mean the onus is on them to do it (nor to leave it in an overly verbose state until someone decides to do it, if ever). Quite the opposite; if this is happening on a regular basis, it's acceptable to revert to the older- and, on balance, better- version even if it means losing minor improvements. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose He seem at least sometimes to be adding useful and even necessary items, s for example at Michael Ames, where I do not think Michael Ames (actor) should have been removed, and I think the two see-also might justified as well. Whether the ones without WP entries should be included is a matter for judgment, if they are mentioned in WP articles--we do not seem to have a guideline that covers this specifically. (But of course all the descriptions are too long). O'f suggest instead that other editors should be more careful in what they remove, and that Roman Spinner finally realize that the current guideline is firmly set against long descriptions. There's a good reason for that--it normally do not help the reader,and it interferes with rapid scanning to find the right person. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)`

Arguably true, but the amount of work required to edit out the long rubrics is annoying. If he wants to expand the descriptions then he needs to start at the MOS and change the way we do dab pages. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The issues is not whether Roman has "sometimes" added value; surely he has, and equally surely that is too low a bar to justify allowing him to continue as he has been. If we declined to sanction any editor who had ever contributed something useful, we'd never sanction anyone. This is a textbook case of sanction-worthy behavior; whether or not you find value in some particular bits of text that Roman has added (and those are surely few and far between), it is completely clear that he has repeatedly and blatantly ignored a very unambiguous consensus. This demonstrates a disdain for the community that we should not abide. —swpb^T 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The only alternative to a complete ban would be a restriction that states he may not add or edit any description on a disambiguation page that is longer than N (perhaps 6) words. I worry though that this would result in a proliferation of descriptions exactly N words long whether that many were required or not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: You've put your finger on that. He mentioned more than once that his edits fitted within a single screen line on his monitor as if the aim was to get as much as possible within that limit, and that the longwinded edit was acceptable provided it was no more than that. (Not that I'm sure where it even states that as a limit anyway, he hasn't yet replied to my question on that). Ubcule (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Unlike the suggested limits for plot summaries of books, films, plays, etc, there is, needless to say, no stated limit, other than "make it short". The definition of "short", however, can vary widely, that is why a single line became my self-imposed limit. However, even I realized that a single line of text, in standard Times font, on a 27-inch screen, is still too much text. It's a moot point, however, judging by the vote. There is no reason to continue swimming against the tide. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: Fundamentally, the aim can be summed up as "no longer than it need be".

FWIW, a full-width "line" is a *lot* of text on most widescreen monitors at typical settings. (For example, on my 22" widescreen I find the lines far too long to comfortably scan and shrink the window, implying that it's more than what most people would reasonably consider a single line.)

Self-imposed limits are fine, but if the thinking is that "it's okay to put in as much as possible so long as it still technically fits under one (widescreen) line" then... sorry, that's still too much in most cases. Ubcule (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support The diffs are not an improvement for DAB pages, which have a different purpose than "standard" pages: they are navigational, not primarily informational. Someone wanting information about a particular item is expected to be able to quickly find the page they are looking for without having to parse out long sentences. If Roman Spinner believes this is not the right approach, he should work on changing the consensus at WT:MOSDAB. Otherwise, he should stay away from the pages. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The responses here from other editors with previous contact with Roman make it clear that this is a major and ongoing problem, and that there has been no evidence of willingness to change behavior. If a ban is not imposed now, it's very likely we will be right back here in short order; I think justification for a ban now is more than sufficient. —swpb^T 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. To reiterate Jwy's post R seems to not understand that DAB pages are directional and info on them is to be kept to a bare minimum. R might be happier working on list articles which are meant to be informative. MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Roman can contribute elsewhere to WP, but has consistently shown himself to act against consensus on dabs, and to show no understanding of the issues around this. Boleyn (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Roman has been on Wikipedia for around ten years and has had his attention drawn to the guidelines on many occasions spanning that time. He's an experienced user who at this point can't fail to be aware of the consensus-agreed guidelines on dab pages. Yet for whatever reason, he's continued to disregard them and manages to politely evade or distract from the issue whenever it's been brought up without ever having explained or justified this. It's not our job to understand why he's doing this, but it's obvious that he doesn't see what he's doing as a problem and after a decade(!!!) of this abundantly clear that he never will. The most that can be hoped for is that the problem can be stopped by some form of sanction or restriction in this specific area. Ubcule (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Solution is justified by evidence of a long term inability to abide by editing consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Anyone can make good faith mistakes. Someone who keeps making the same mistake after having the mistake pointed out to them for years is either being intentionally disruptive, or intentionally refusing to abide by consensus. ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment LindsayH I would like to suggest that the talk page of DAB pages be added to the ban. Otherwise we are likely to see things like Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page. RS continues to display a WP:NOTGETTINGIT mentality and IMO an extension of the ban to talk pages will be needed. MarnetteD|Talk 20:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this would be helpful; I assumed the talk pages would be covered by default. Extending the ban to the talk pages will reduce the temptation to try to skirt the ban, as it seems RS is already intent on doing. —swpb^T 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I too agree with making dab talk pages explicitly part of the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, i also; thank you MarnetteD for pointing out my omission: I should have stated it explicitly; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 14:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with talk page block too. Would suggest we possibly advise him of some alternative mechanism for making legitimate complaints, however. Ubcule (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Roman Spinner 1) Having already agreed (in response to Boleyn, below) that "[A]ll my future [disambiguation page] entries will be pared to the bone", I must still express dismay at this proposal to limit free speech on disambiguation talk pages. In the same manner that I have been pointed towards WP:NOTGETTINGIT, I would point User:MarnetteD to WP:Talk Page Etiquette for a primer on what constitutes offenses which may result in a ban. The proposal and its supportive votes are all the more surprising in that these emanate from veteran Wikipedians who must surely be aware of the project's fundamental principles and the fact that talk pages are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, but represent a venue for discussion of improvements.

2) My contributions to disambiguation talk pages were never merely copy-and-paste recreations of my main page versions. As evidenced from my two most recent submissions (Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page and Talk:That's My Boy#Three versions of the That's My Boy disambiguation page), each talk page submission is accompanied by specific numbered annotations which highlight each point raised, thus presenting opportunities for other Wikipedians to comment, criticize, suggest revisions, etc. No portion of my text on these two talk pages nor any of the other dab talk pages which I have edited in the past, can be in any way considered as violating Wikipedia's restrictions (wikilawyering, legal threats, incivility, abusive language, privacy/copyright violations, etc), none of which is at issue in this discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation would seem to be a sensible place for that, and it seems a fairly active page. Comments left there though should be limited in number so as to avoid overloading the page. Any use of that (or any other page) to propose unnecessarily long dab page descriptions, or to maintain alternative disambiguation pages, etc, will likely see the topic ban revisited with a view to extending it to a complete ban from the topic of disambiguaiton on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am concerned that as recently as yesterday, while discussion was ongoing, Roman created a talk page again listing all his preferred versions, see [36]. This is not the only example of this behaviour during the ANI. The discussion is here, and it feels like yet another way to sneak on his versions. I would definitely also support a ban on talk pages being explicitly mentioned. Boleyn (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The use of talk pages to propose [specifically enumerated and detailed] improvements is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and enacting such a ban would set a negative precedent. There is no claim of privacy or copyright violation, harm, humiliation, threat or injury. There has been no 3RR or edit warring. Even the occasionally submitted accusation of "tendentious editing" is invalidated by the fact that talk pages are precisely the venue for exchange of ideas and proposed improvements. As for the above-mentioned talk pages, those were specifically inserted as part of this discussion because of their mention during the discussion and at least one editor's request for an explanation of those edits. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had asked Roman to explain his changes to the "That's My Boy" dab page as a representative example of his excessively longwinded edits. I guess- in this case- it's probably justified that he replied there.

Even if it was a waste of time since he missed- or rather, managed to minimise and evade addressing yet again- the issue of the bloat, instead focusing on other issues that were more easily justified (since they were never under criticism in the first place). Ubcule (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Are you sure about the talk page ban? I don't have enough time to investigate in depth, and have no comment on the dab page ban, but on cursory review, this veer towards a talk page ban too seems unnecessary. Looks like the long posts being criticized were in response to requests for explanations; it doesn't seem fair to penalize him for explaining, and in particular, complaining he didn't just link to the versions isn't fair; you can't do side by side comparisons with links. If he creates an article that needs to be added to a dab page and can't add it himself, an edit request on the talk page should be allowed. If some new problem crops up (for example, lobbying to make a dab page long and detailed, which I think User:Roman Spinner now knows would be a big mistake), it would be quick and easy to add a talk page ban to the list. But let's not ban him from a dab talk page too quickly. Unless I'm seriously missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the concern, Floquenbeam, is the fear that Roman will see the talk page as a way of bludgeoning his long, overly detailed narratives of people or items which need to be disambiguated into play. Certainly, that is what i felt was happening on the page MarnetteD mentioned ~ Talk:Kevin McCarthy ~ in which, during this discussion as i read it, he still didn't seem to get the concern and consensus, argued for his way, and (by the by) offered a version with two wlinks in one line, contrary to the community's expressed desire. My feeling is that it would be fine for Roman to make a request on a DAB talk page; my fear is that he wouldn't hold himself to that; thus my support for that portion of the proposed ban also; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, you may be right for the last week, but not for the last few years. I would remove bloat on dab, then Roman would copy it onto the dab's Talk page. This was done on dozens of dabs, with something at the top like 'Posting this to start discussion' and then complete copy. I think if ban isn't very specific - no editing of dab pages, including their talk pages - this problem will continue one way or another. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

1) The two well-meaning postings above require a response. First, Lindsay's mention of "offered a version with two wlinks in one line", which must be a reference to this entry: "Kevin McCarthy (entrepreneur) (born 1985), American internet media entrepreneur who co-founded local online news site and community publishing platform BostInno". The explanation is that at the time I posted my revisions to the Kevin McCarthy dab page, Kevin McCarthy (entrepreneur) was a redlink, thus leaving the link to his company, BostInno as the sole blue link. When I redirected Kevin McCarthy (entrepreneur) to BostInno, it also became a blue link, thus making the second blue link (to BostInno) unnecessary. When I now reprinted my original version on the talk page, the second link was unintentionally missed.

2) I must also explain the succeeding issue raised by Boleyn, who has devoted years to the maintenance of disambiguation pages. I have never posted disambiguation talk page content which simply presents a longer version of the entries on the main page. In each instance of my posting dab talk page content (such at Talk:Kevin McCarthy), I strove to explain changes to incorrectly or ambiguously stated entries and to introduce new entries, all of which had previously been reverted [using TWINKLE] by Boleyn on the main page, without apparently reading it, reacting to it, acknowledging the new content or making any attempt to merge the new content into the existing dab page. Even if it was meant as a form of punishment for me in the sense of "unless you make it short, your entire contribution will be treated as vandalism", it also punished other users who were (and still are) deprived of the benefit of these revisions and additions.

3) An additional explanation is needed as to Boleyn's statement that I would append to dab talk pages "something at the top like 'Posting this to start discussion' and then complete copy". A brief glance at the previously mentioned Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page would show such assertion to be incomplete and misleading. Each of my other dab page additions was done in the style of the Kevin McCarthy page, with a point-by-point list (15 points in the case of Kevin McCarthy) specifying the missing entries and the needed revisions or corrections for the existing entries.

4) Finally, the potential of such a talk page ban disparages the basic philosophy of talk pages which are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content and serve to propose improvements. I would point those Wikipedians who suggest such a ban to WP:Talk page guidelines where offenses leading a ban are specified. None of those indicated (incivility, abuse, libel, legal threats, privacy or copyright violations, etc) is at issue here and neither are 3RR or edit warring. Let us not set such a pernicious precedent. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment I was giving a concise version of what Roman was doing with dab talk pages - naturally when I looked it up they contained considerable more bloat. Here is an example of what Roman for a while did on Talk pages as soon as I edited the page down to fit with the agreed consensus and guidelines, [37]. For a while this was happening constantly, then died down. When I deleted it, it would often then be copied into Roman's userspace, e.g. User:Roman Spinner/C (disambiguation). It's the type of edit I would like him to be banned from making; I can only see it as a way of trying to get his version out there for a real attempt at discussion, the best venue would have been the Wikiproject or guidelines talk page, as I persistently said to Roman. As for grounds for banning you from editing dab talk pages, I think there are grounds. If after this ANI you still try to push your POV, not at an apporpriate venue, such as the Wikiproject, but on dab talk pages, I would consider that incivility would be a polite description of your conduct. I would also consider it a clear type of edit warring. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Response 1) Boleyn has been donating time to disambiguation pages for a good many years and Wikipedians should be grateful to have among us such a hard-working contributor. Such dedication, however, should not mutate into WP:OWN. Talk:Robert Healey cited by Boleyn above is, indeed, a typical example. Instead of responding to my contribution at that talk page with a comment such as, "although the content of the descriptions is correct, the length of each description is beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia dab pages and therefore each description must be severely reduced. I will be glad to discuss the specific wording of each entry", Boleyn deleted my entire comment in clear violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (none of the exceptions: personal attacks, copyright violations, etc) is applicable here. Perhaps other Wikipedians may have been interested in joining the discussion. After all, talk pages exist to suggest improvements and, because such pages are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, the main page is not affected by the exchange of ideas at the talk page.

2) Boleyn's other example, The Call Girls is a much more illustrative model of Boleyn's disregard for content. If anyone wonders why the present form of this dab page has two entries, while my edit has six entries, it is because Boleyn eliminated it [using TWINKLE] without making any attempt to evaluate it, examine it or include any of the four additional entries from my edit (particularly egregious is the exclusion of Arthur Koestler's novel The Call-Girls which, unlike my other three excluded entries, actually has its own article. As for Boleyn's complaint that I put these entries in my own userspace — since Boleyn deleted me from the dab page and the talk page, what other venue do I have for enabling Wikipedia users to discover that among The Call Girls titles is, for one, an Arthur Koestler novel. The most ironic are Boleyn's complaints of incivility and edit warring. In all my mentions of Boleyn, I strive to praise Boleyn's dedication and persistence and various other good qualities. As for edit warring, it is the most ironic accusation, since I have never reverted a single one of Boleyn's consistent deletions of my edits, perhaps making it appear that I agree with such actions. While I ruefully accept the deletions, I do not agree with Boleyn's actions and deeply regret them, especially the talk page deletions. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note; The Call Girls has been merged/redirected into Call girl (disambiguation) (as per guidelines on definite article and plural forms). That wasn't directly related to anything discussed here, but it's worth making clear so you get the right version of the page.

Please see this version for Boleyn's then-current revision at the time Roman made his comment. Ubcule (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll be brief in my response. Roman, pleae stop trying to make this ANI about my conduct. Again, it is about your' conduct and your inabilitiy to follow consensus. Keep repeating criticisms of me if you must, but they're not relevant and just further show your inability to properly address the issues. Deflecting does't change that. I think we're going round in circles here and it's time for this to be wrapped up by an admin. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Roman seems to have clear issues with following consensus on dab pages. If he wants to make edit requests on the talk page to add a new entry with a five word description, that's fine. But if he bludgeons the process, then his topic ban should be extended to talk pages, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per NinjaRobotPirate's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose looking at some of the diffs, the additions were improvements. For example, as was pointed out The Call-Girls, why was his version reverted? Even if two films were redlinked, the novel was most certainly appropriate to be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sir Joseph: This has been refuted above, but to recap yes there are occasions when RS adds things that are beneficial however they are very significantly fewer than the occasions when his extremely long descriptions seriously degrade the page, and he has refused to listen to consensus regarding this for the best part of a decade. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sir Joseph: See my previous comments here and here regarding why the onus to separate the small amount of wheat (i.e. improvements) from the mass of chaff (i.e. bloat) that outweighs any benefit *doesn't* lie with other editors. In addition, while that's the kind of thing I'd fix if it was a one-off newbie edit, I think it has to be made clear that it isn't acceptable from established editors who should know better. Ubcule (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sir Joseph, I think you've missed some key points in the discussion. I reverted because Roman said that if I disagreed with his edits I could just revert them. I did in a percentage of these misformed dabs, although I didn't feel comfortable about it. However, the emphasis here is not on whether there was a benefit from some of these edits, but whether Roman persistently ignored consensus despite several warnings/reminders. Those linked above are a fraction of the reminders, as others were left on dab talk pages and edit summaries. Roman has continued to ignore them for about a decade. Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Roman Spinner's response 1) Above, Boleyn has described my dabs as "misformed", but not as "misinformed". In fact, no one is claiming that any of my additions or enhancements [appending of vital dates, nationalities, professions] consisted of content that was in any way false or misleading. As for putatively "harming" Wikipedia by slightly enhancing the detail of dab entries, Wikipedians should consider a wider context — between my first edit in January 2006 and my 10th anniversary in January 2016, I had been contacted on my talk page (regarding this specific subject) by only four users (User:Jwy, User:Boleyn, User:Ubcule and User:Midas02). if my disambiguation page editing pattern had actually been as egregious and dismissive of warnings over an entire decade, as is now claimed, I would surely have been inundated with complaints and warnings.

2) Some specific details may be helpful. Regarding The Call Girls dab, I invite Wikipedians to compare this two-entry version of The Call Girls which had been the "official" dab page from December 13, 2014 until a couple of days ago (February 22, 2016) to my six-entry properly formatted version which was created on December 13, 2014 and reverted by Boleyn on the same day (four hours later). For the one-year, two-month and nine-day-period between Dec 13 2014 and Ubcule's Feb 22 2016 merger and incorporation (in response to my posting) of the additional entries at Call girl (disambiguation), Wikipedia users (who may have wanted information on the other five entries) were deprived of the benefit of accessing those five entries on The Call Girls dab page (or any other dab page). The overlap of one entry is due to my deletion on Dec 13 2014 of a redlinked entry {The Call Girls (1973)} without a blue link. Following the revert, Boleyn found a DABMENTION for that entry (List of Hong Kong films of 1973), but made no other edits, allowing all other shortcomings, including incorrect formatting {it should have been The Call Girls (1973 film)} and, of course, the five missing entries I had added, to remain unchanged.

3) I applaud Ubcule's merger of The Call Girls dab into the Call girl (disambiguation) page (I did not create either dab page and only made one edit [on December 13, 2014] to The Call Girls dab) and have now added [to Ubcule's newly-created version] one missing entry, Call Girls (1997 film), from my 2014 edit. Consensus-based combining of disparate elements is much preferable to dividing into sub-dab pages as exemplified by my original edit of the Elizabeth Walker dab page into 16 entries (there were five randomly-inserted entries before I enlarged it), which was immediately (within the hour) redistributed by Boleyn into sub-dab pages such as Lisa Walker, Elisa Walker and Beth Walker with various unhelpful results, such as the same person, Liz Walker (politician) and Liz Walker, political candidate for Newton—North Delta, being listed as the sole entries under section header "Politicians" (my edit had six listings under section header "Political figures" and I did not link or list twice Liz Walker (politician) who doesn't even have an article). Also, actress Liza Walker who was among the seven chronologically-listed [by birth year] entries under section header "Performing arts and television personalities" had disappeared completely after Boleyn's "clean-up" --- no longer listed under Elizabeth, Lisa, Elisa or Beth.

4) I detailed all of these and other inadequacies (reproduced at Talk:Elizabeth Walker#Content of this disambiguation page) in response to Boleyn's posting on my talk page, but received no reply or explanation. Thus, for the past year and ten months (April 2014–February 2016) Wikipedia users who may have needed such details were deprived of access and instead were faced with a misguided and confusing mixture.

5) Boleyn's contention of revising some of my dabs, rather than reverting them, only applies to dab pages which I newly created, thus making them irreversible. All the new entries, corrections and additions (dates, nationalities) which I appended to already-existing dab pages were reverted by Boleyn [using TWINKLE] without even being examined. Was such attitude/behavior meant to improve Wikipedia and help its users? Is the presumed approach of "this is your chastisement for not making your descriptions shorter" meant as punishment for me in not having my work see the light of day, or punishment for Wikipedia users who were deprived of information they would have otherwise had? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement from Roman Spinner

1) Since this ANI concerns my disambiguation page editing pattern, it is obviously necessary that I present, at the very least, a view on the matter. My name is Roman Spinner and, as User:Roman Spinner, I have been editing Wikipedia on an almost-daily basis for just over ten years (first edit: January 22, 2006). I tend to make an average of five to fifteen edits per day and have accumulated (as of present count at preferences) 23,777 edits without a single use of an automated tool (I commend the utility of such tools as AutoWikiBrowser, but my editing pattern is too light to require assistance of that nature).

2) As for the matter at hand, despite the description (above) of my attention to dab pages as "obsession", I tend to edit or create one or, at most, four disambiguation pages per month, with a monthly average of two or three dab pages. While, over ten years, such an average would still run into the low hundreds of dab pages, it represents a minute percentage of my total edits (a rough estimate indicates that I have a ten-year average of editing 2.4 to to 2.6 dab pages per month). My early interest in dab pages was spurred by the fact that many of them consisted simply of names and topics thrown together at random without any order, other than similarity. I started assembling such pages into a recognizable disposition by arranging the entries under section headers specifying professions or topics. I also examined each topic to ascertain vital dates, with addition of nationalities and key points of notability.

3) The claim (above) that "User:Roman Spinner has regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information, and has been repeatedly warned to stop" is invalidated by the simple fact that none of my descriptions exceeds three-quarters of a single line of text (with most averaging one-fourth to one-half of a single line). It should be noted that in one of my previous communications with User:Boleyn, I explained that, while editing on a 27-inch iMac with standard-size fonts and resolution, "I realize that various users use different fonts, font sizes, screen sizes and formatting. Such matters, however, vary from user to user and present differing issues not simply for users of disambiguation pages, but also for users of all Wikipedia entries". As for "unhelpful information" (presumably meaning the "key points of notability"), as I mentioned above, "would information of the same length but phrased in a different manner or consisting of different content be more "helpful", or is any information of such length "unhelpful"? In the latter case would it not be more precise to state "excessive", rather than "unhelpful" information?"

4) Regarding the contention I have "been repeatedly warned to stop" and "responses here from other editors with previous contact with Roman make it clear that this is a major and ongoing problem", it should be made clear what actual contact I received (all postings are linked above). In January 2008, User:Jwy made a friendly inquiry on the subject and had not contacted me since. More than four years later, in April 2012, User:Boleyn, sent a relatively benign posting which could in no way be considered a "warning". Later that year, in December, User:Ubcule sent a gently-worded message, also without contacting me again. The next posting, in April 2014 was, indeed, a lengthy complaint from, again, User:Boleyn, the majority (most?) of whose edits have been to disambiguation pages. Then, in June 2015, User:Midas02 sent a gentle reminder (not a warning).

5) Most recently, on February 9, User:Swpb contacted me twice, first with a complaint, then a warning. I replied to all postings, detailing and explaining each point of contention. Thus went the "repeated warnings" — three gentle reminders from three users in eight years, then a gentle reminder followed two years later by a complaint from a fourth user (Boleyn) who is continually working on dabs, and, finally, a brand-new complaint/warning from the fifth user (Swpb), all of whom received immediate responses from me. Two of the posters, Jwy (from 2008) and Ubcule (from 2012), have joined this discussion to state here that they are now upgrading their earlier "gentle reminders" from my talk page to complaint/warnings.

6) While it is painful for me to say anything negative about User:Boleyn who, over a number of years, has been one of the most productive, hard-working and valuable contributors to Wikipedia, Boleyn's use of the "obsession" in reference to me is, I regret to conclude, self-inflicted. Boleyn's relentless editing of dab pages of reverting my edits as "vandalism" using Twinkle, without even incorporating my changes (new entries, nationalities, vital dates, name adjustments) (compare my entry for Kevin McCarthy) and Boleyn's current version, Kevin McCarthy (my changes have been reverted twice without any of my additions being incorporated, despite my detailing those changes in the edit summary). For those who wish to examine the exact nature of the changes I made to the Kevin McCarthy dab page, may link to Talk:Kevin McCarthy#Two versions of the Kevin McCarthy disambiguation page, where I have prepared a presentation on the subject (unless Boleyn deletes it).

7) There are numerous such examples which I will prepare for future presentation (depending upon how long this ANI continues). In the meantime, just one additional example of Boleyn's "vandal revert" (thrice) of my changes: this is my version of The Young Lovers dab page and, even though I detailed in my edit summary three times (5 February 2014, 4 August 2014 and 30 September 2015) that I was repairing the circular redirect for "Young Lovers", 1963 composition performed by Paul & Paula so that it indicates "Young Lovers" (song), composition performed in 1963 by American pop singing duo Paul & Paula as follow-up to their number-one hit, earlier that year, "Hey Paula"; "Young Lovers" reached number six on 1963's Billboard Pop Singles chart, Boleyn reverted me three times, once with the edit summary: "Can I keep editing Wikipedia when I'm wasting all my time with this?" After nearly two years (since February 2014), Boleyn never repaired it (probably never even read my three edit summaries) and it still remains as a circular redirect. In his second comment on my talk page, User:Swpb accused me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but wouldn't obstructing users' access to a link rise to that level?

8) Finally, because I value Boleyn's contributions, I write this with regret, but I added the words "(unless Boleyn deletes it)" above, because Boleyn has been deleting my contributions to disambiguation talk pages where I compared my versions of respective dab dates with the currently existing forms and suggested improvements (for example, William Henderson). These were not simply copies of my "overlong" versions, but annotated versions, with a preface, detailing my proposed revisions and additions. Because, in Boleyn's words, "I hate confrontation", I did not complain, thus making it appear as if I condoned, tolerated or agreed with such behavior for years, thus putatively giving the appearance of handing Boleyn carte blanche to reverse my dab work. However, at this stage of the confrontation, all cards should be on the table, particularly in regard to talk pages, which serve primarily to discuss improvements. Wikipedia:Talk Page Etiquette specifies: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." None of the standard reasons for deletion — legal threats, abusive language, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc are applicable here.

9) There is more, but I will conclude this (typically?) overlong statement and wait for additional contributions from other users. I thank all those who showed interest in this matter and commented here, whether for or against. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Response to above: I'll be brief, as this ANI is not about me. I started just reverting because you wrote to me, that if I disagreed with your edits, I could always revert them. In the majority of cases, I edited rather than reverting, or tagged for disambig-cleanup, which is how the nominator probably became aware of your conduct. But this ANI is about your conduct, not mine. Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner:

(2) By this point it's assumed that you're familiar with the intended purpose of dab pages. But, to reiterate:-

Dab pages are navigational aids; they're *not* intended as potted one-line summaries, but your addition of (e.g.) "key points of notability" seems determined to take them in this direction.

As the guidelines state, "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link".

One might argue about how much *is* necessary for that, certainly- I'm sure I don't always get the balance right myself. But it seems that (newbies aside) this generally isn't an issue, probably because most editors keep things concise and usable enough not to be worth nitpicking over.

However, it seems that many of your edits to existing material consistently add unnecessary bloat to entries that were already clear and usable, turning them into one-line summaries that make it *harder* to see the woods for the trees.

Also, FWIW, I too try to separate and group pages with (would-be) intelligent use of subheadings (etc.), but I don't tend to add content unless I feel it aids or clarifies the page's navigational purpose.

(4) You seem keen to maximise the distinction between benign messages and warnings. Some of those messages (mine included) were presumably sent in response to what appeared to be typical misguided newbie behaviour. The point is that you've been on Wikipedia for a long time and can't fail to have been aware of the guidelines.

(6) I've already said this twice elsewhere, but when (what would otherwise be) improvements are repeatedly bundled up with bloat that's contrary to the consensus-agreed guidelines and counter-productive to the agreed aims of a dab page- then it's unreasonable to place the onus on other editors to do the tedious work of separating them out. Particularly when the new versions are- on balance- less useful (due to the aforementioned verbiage). This applies- for example- to your changes to the Kevin McCarthy article.

Ubcule (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: I'd like to point out that being writing a line of text that fits on your 27in monitor at 100% zoom without regard for the effects on other readers is a discourtesy to readers. For example, depending on the situation I may read on my 15in laptop screen or on a 21 or 22in screen. On my laptop, the text is about 1.5 lines while on my monitor it is 1.25 lines. Consideration should be made to accommodate the reader not the editor. If 1 line on your monitor equates to 1.5 lines on a 15in laptop, then you should consider reducing your text from 1 line to 0.75 lines or less at 100% zoom. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

On my desktop, with an 1024px wide window using monobook skin and 100% zoom (my default settings) the descriptions in the first linked diff above run to about 1.25-1.5 lines. On my mobile (a Samsung Galaxy S5 with default settings, I don't know what they are) they are 6-7 lines long. However the point is not how long they are on different devices, the point is that everybody else has been telling you for many years that your understanding of what constitutes a good dab page entry does not accord with consensus. The consensus, which has existed since before I joined Wikipedia in late 2004, is that only a very few words are necessary in almost all cases. Even with seven editors supporting a proposal to topic ban you from dab pages, you still are not listening. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:TAGTEAM, WP:YESPOV and breach of WP:CONSENSUS at Political Correctness

Currently, there is an RfC about the lead at Political Correctness, specifically about the term "primarily". The language RfC at talk is about changing it. All randomly browsing linguist editors voted for a third option to replace it with: "often".

Yet a group of three WP:TAGTEAM hound this article: Aquillion (history), Fyddlestix (history) and Pincrete (history). Their modus operandi is revert warring together. No one can beat them in straight up control of this article. The only way to beat them is by a vote which is currently against them, yet even then they try their hardest to pretend the concensus is for them.

The issue that ignited this ANI report is the fact that I now wanted to add a dubious tag to the "primarily" since the concensus is against it. I were reverted by Aquillion who claimed that "primarily" is long-standing (3 months now). The RfC is as old as the addition of the primarily, and random editors have tried removing pejorative altogether in the meantime. It's clearly a very controversial description. I did one revert of that removal of the dubious tag and explained that the concensus is against and that from the next revert I'd take the matter to ANI. I were blunt because I were more than certain I'd just get reverted again by one of the other meatpuppeteers, with them avoiding edit war but me being lead to one. I were then shortly reverted by Pincrete, stating that there is no reason for the tag since there is an RfC about it. If it is dubious then there is need for the dubious tag and it's to be talked about. Request for Comments is what RfC stands for, and there is "discuss" right next to the dubious marker. It fills the same niche but why would they override?

The history of full of the three edit warring together and against people other than me. One reverts then another. It's such beautiful concert. At talk they have a history of appearing an hour apart from each other to vote, after having been away from the talk for 15-20 days with hundreds of posts and a large number of sections created in the meantime. The others don't need to argue when one handles it, but when you need to vote you of course need the whole gang. Someone even bothered to vote twice on a Kansas mobile phone IP at the talk. These three are the only ones opposing the change in addition to the mobile phone so I strongly suspect the mobile phone is one of them, especially since we haven't seen the mobile phone before the vote. Editing this article or even just talking at the talk is just a nightmare because of shady tactics like this.

I had displayed bad faith in November (understandable in these circumstances) and an ANI report was made of me, with all of the three asking a block from editing only this article of me. The background to that ANI was that back then I noticed from the histories of the other articles related to Political Correctness that Aquillion had made similar POV edits. He had removed large, sourced chunks of text. I did reverts on multiple articles, and I were put up here for hounding and bad faith. None other but the three came forth with accusations. A Wikipedia employee then stepped in and warned me to stop hounding, which I weren't even familiar of before as a banned behavior. Of course I've never done anything similar after that. I also later swore to one of the three to never accuse of bad behavior when it's covert like I had but only when it's overt. But what is currently happening is very overt. In addition at one point I had actually made a meatpuppet report at SPI about the three, but the admin who closed it hadn't really read through well because he thought I had made the ANI report I just mentioned. I always bring the mistake up when one of the three (always the same one I argue with really) brings up that we already went through the investigation. I mentioned all of this because otherwise it would have been more than certainly guaranteed that they'll mention it and clutter it with untruths. None of what I wrote in this paragraph is an untruth. You'll see it because none of this paragraph's text will be denied. In addition my large numbers of edits to the talk will absolutely be brought up. Most of them edits are tiny typo edits since I usually just rush to post without looking for typos. In addition each is a reply to one of of the three...

I request the dubious tag be added back for the duration of the RfC vote/discussion. There is strong opposition against the "primarily". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Brief reply by Pincrete The three editors Mr Magoo mentions (inc myself) are virtually the only regular editors on the page, therefore to speak of 'concensus' when all three oppose most of Mr Magoo's edits is nonsense. Since his arrival at this page, Mr Magoo has repeatedly made accusations of 'puppetry', lying etc. This has been the subject of a number of ANI's and an SPI, the closing editor on that SPI, Bbb23, said This is a baseless report brought by an editor who failed to obtain the results they wanted at ANI and then came here. The filer's spin on the evidence they've compiled is remarkably long but devoid of quality. Closing.. There is an open RfC on the disputed text (the second instigated by Mr Magoo on almost the same subject), the RfC has not yet been closed, but I defy anyone to conclude that there is anything remotely like a concensus to alter the disputed text.

I will give a fuller account of any issues if anyone should wish, in the meantime I ask that someone close this ANI as peremptorily as did Bbb23.Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Like I wrote above, you always bring up that SPI about meatpuppetry. And like I just wrote, he hadn't really read through it because he thought I had listed the ANI mentioned there twice not to have been by me. And there is not as clear concensus in the RfC but there is blatant concensus that it is dubious whether it's primarily. In addition, there have been many editors who have tried to become regular editors of the page. Notably Valereee who opposed primarily but didn't want to fight. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, it seems like it was originally Valereee who tried to put "often" in the lead: 1. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Zezen was also scared off as he was tag team edit warred against, even after having my support. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't followed this particular situation but we all know the members of this WP:TAGTEAM and which admins give them cover. I expect one will be along shortly to close this request before any meaningful examination can take place. 107.107.56.19 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest Boomerang - The accusations of POV pushing and tag teaming are baseless, and absurd. As Magoo has repeatedly been told, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're part if a shadowy conspiracy. But Magoo has continually refused to assume good faith, despite multiple requests/warnings. They have been bludgeoning the discussion at Political Correctness for months now, exhausting others' patience to the point where pretty much everyone but Pincrete has basically tuned out the "debate." Not only are Magoo accusations here totally baseless, they're just the latest stunt in a very long, very severe pattern of disruptive behavior. This needs addressing. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Then why have all of you remained but as I mentioned the ones opposing you like Valereee and Zezen have been scared off? Consider the possibility that it's you three bludgeoning the discussion and tag teaming any disagreer. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment I don't have much time so I'll be brief and come back later to expand. Since I participated in the RfC in November (it's been that long) I noticed there were issues between at least Magoo and Pincrete, and kept an eye on it as a disinterested editor. In fact, that RfC which is finishing its third month (for comparison, all of WP:RFA2015 took 4 months from the idea RfC to implementation), is largely unreadable because of the bickering between Magoo and Pincrete on pretty much every single comment. This is a much more longstanding problem than the dubious tag, and think editors trying to resolve this, should look more at the long term issues between the parties than this isolated incident. I've got to go, but should be back to give a few more specific thoughts, and feel free to ask me questions or to clarify in the mean time if need be. Wugapodes (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Looking at how the discussion has progressed, I don't think I can add anything that hasn't been brought up. Wugapodes (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Changing of the adjective was brought up in the former RfC. It was a compromise suggestion. "Often" as a compromise was suggested by Valereee last October, as in long ago. All I'm fighting for anymore is even a compromise. They won't budge the slightest. On another note: If you look at my history I have taken a great liking to doing sometimes exhaustive research on WP:AfD and have largely forgotten about this article. What does this translate to? The bickering is largely solved if the compromise is met. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, could you please supply the evidence that … a) A consensus exists to support your proposed edits (other than your own interpretation of an open RfC) … b) any evidence that anything improper unites the three named editors, or that they share anything in common apart from a disagreement with most of your edits, (and a distaste for the waste of time incurred by your bludgeoning methods and personal attacks, which this ANI is the latest example of).

This is not the place for a content dispute, but the lead should be a summary of the article, where in the article is there any evidence of extensive non-derogatory use of the term 'PC' (based on 2ndary RS studies of use, not personal interpretation of primary sources or anecdotal evidence). We cannot conjure compromises out of our head which bear no relationship to the article, nor to studies of the use of the term. I proposed an alternative compromise based on 'came to prominence as a pejorative term', (since everyone recognises that the term CAN BE used ironically and in many other ways, even though these may not have been studied) but you dismissed the proposal. Your appeal for 'compromise' is completely at variance with your behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Where did I claim support for "proposed edits"? I claimed there is concensus for it being dubious, which is plain. Your argument in reverting was that both dubious tag and RfC can't co-exist. Where's the logic in that? And if you look at the article's history I'm not the only one you have edit warred or bludgeoned against. Before me you were shooting down plenty of people on talk. Didn't I list like 8 editors before who had disagreed with you?

And I agree this is not the sort of place for this sort of discussion, so why continue it yourself? We should close this discussion in one of the green folders, but I think it would be rude if I did right now so maybe you can follow up with it. And the article has numerous examples of non-pejorative uses, merely describing it as the mentality of censoring based on politics. In fact there is a dearth of pejorative examples. We even have a big section for Right-wing political correctness, listing cold usages of the term to describe political censoring. And when did you suggest that prominence bit? Where I saw you talk about that you only talked about the history of the term, leading me to think you were talking about the history section. You have before written that the article lead should not be about the current day usage but about the historic, right? What can I even respond to that? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• A-ban from political correctness - A skimming of the talk page makes me think (1) this is sour grapes on the part of Magoo vis-a-vis the RfC , (2) this feud has been ongoing for many months, and (3) Magoo is treating the article as a battleground. Their behavior has been beyond poor. Back in November Magoo found it "funny" that Aquillion and Fyddle soon after each other on the RfC and suggested they were "telepaths". This is thinly veiled sock/meat accusations. Additionally Magoo replied to nearly every "often" or "primarily" response to the RfC, suggesting to me that they are approaching it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not a method of forming consensus. They also accuse an IP editor of voting twice in the past RfC and being the same person who commented in the Plane Art section. The IPs are related, but not identical and to suggest they are the same person is accusing them of socking without evidence. Moreover, Magoo segregated those two RfC comments by (1) putting them under a header and (2) specifying their location. Between the comments and behavior on the RfC, the November SPI closed by Bbb23 as baseless ([38]), and this ANI make me think Magoo should banned from the article. Magoo's other edits seem constructive and as far as I can tell there's no specific topic that's being disrupted or targeted here, just this specific article. For the sake of the editor and the encyclopedia, removing this editor temporarily from this article seems like the best course of action to me. I think this would be more effective than an i-ban given the number of editors involved and what appears to be the lopsidedness the problem behaviors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• The IPs are from the same part of Kansas using the same phone company posting at nearly the same time of the day and in a rare fashion also always adding a period after a vote. The talk page has very few partakers. I don't know how much more clear you can get that it's the same person. AND since you mentioned something I had written about the two named editors I also happened to now remember that the first and the last began editing the article days apart in May 2015, cracking up hundreds of edits without bothering each other. And it's silly to only accuse me of battleground behavior when I'm been a victim of it as well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You are not the victim here, sorry. Your behavior is atrocious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Explain why? I point out the obvious and I get punished for it? The ones reported plainly participating in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TAGTEAM behavior in baiting me to edit war you see nothing wrong with? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Could you expand on why you think an i-ban wouldn't be an effective option? I understand your point a bit, but would rather hear a bit more from you because I'm not entirely convinced. Wugapodes (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: In my understanding, ibans are for when two editors simply cannot get along or they antagonize each other. One-way ibans are for when one editor hounds/harasses/antagonizes another. But that's not what's going on here. There are multiple editors "against" one. The issues seems to be more the article itself and Magoo's behavior on it than the editors' interactions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I exhibited bad behavior in November on this article but not since? It's been incredibly quiet since December. Just look at the number of messages on talk, not edits (I make lots of typo corrections). What exactly are you accusing me of? What message in particular? The only ones that been pointed were the ones towards the two IPs which I showed have such similarities that if you fed it through an odds calculator you'd pretty much end up with only the possibility that it's the same editor (you can do this. Same principle as at https://amiunique.org/. Just visit that site and you'll find that you're most likely unique due to so many little things attributing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• The lead itself is a content dispute. The bigger issue here is Mr. Magoo's behavior on talk, which I feel has been fairly WP:TENDENTIOUS, focused on WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. The actual disputes are often relatively minor (sometimes focused on as little as one-word differences), and there have been some compromises; but he refuses to drop anything for good, ever, constantly bringing up old disagreements, and has made it clear on many occasions that he feels that he's there on the talk page to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by fighting what he views as (as he implies above) as a cabal of POV pushers. He mentions that few people participate on that talk page now, but I think that the reason for this has more to do with the way his intransigence on even the most minor points have reduced it to a sprawling, unreadable mess. While the page has been relatively quiet recently, some examples of recent edits he's made on talk that illustrate the problem include his failure to WP:AGF here and here, his tone here, and his hostile focus on irrelevant details eg. here. I also think it's worth pointing out that he's been involved in another dispute nearly identical to this one on Talk:Veganism (where he has since agreed not to edit); see the report here for discussing regarding it. I feel the fact that the exact same events played out there between him and unrelated editors shows that the problem is him and not us. I particularly invite people to compare his behavior as reported on Talk:Veganism with the behavior I described in an earlier report about this here (with many more detailed links). Based on all this, I'm suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't doubt that he believes he is fighting the good fight against a tag-team of POV pushers, but I think that the way he goes about conducting these disputes (and his unwillingness to WP:AGF about editors he strongly disagrees with on certain political topics) is at the root of the problems on the page. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'd first of like to point there were people who disagreed with me in the first RfC, other than you three. I didn't bother any of these people. Why is that? Where is your suggested WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here? Why have you made numerous editors run away from the article in the past, having won arguments against them by bludgeoning and by sheer numbers? And when it comes to dropping the stick, I originally I disagreed much more strongly in this matter. Generally nor often were my choice originally. They are the compromise. You have pretty much never ever dropped the WP:STICK when against anyone. And when it comes to the other article, it was about WP:EDITWARring over a mention of animal products. How is this in any way related to this matter? You just went digging for dirt to sling, didn't you? In addition, I'm still allowed to partake at the talk there since it was about edit warring (per discussions with hander). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Look at the things people said in that report (including you; you even used the same language to describe the people you disagreed with as a tag-team.) But also see the comments from other users, including one that your behavior there was a mirror image of your behavior here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Those diffs solidify my suggestion for a-ban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I did use that term that after I had learned it at the ANI about me you had made in your own WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality but only vaguely and not like now as a report and the reason was that they were actually plainly talking about tactics on user talk. You don't think that's team-like behavior? And is that your only relation? Wait, after that you point out a bit where they say I made a large number of edits there as well, pointing out the Fyd quotation where he says I made the hundreds of edits to the current article's talk. Is the matter at hand the number of typo corrections I make? Is it against Wikipedia's rules to respond to every reply you get? Notice how they don't point out anything else. The subject matter was the edit war that had taked place and only because I had accidentally partaken it at the end. If you notice the last edits weren't even about the warred bit but of citation templates and that bit was just got taken on a ride. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

NOTE!

I'd just like to point out that this notice is not about seeking any punishments for some vague tag-teamism — I know blocks aren't handed out for anything vague — but just the return of the dubious tag. I listed the tag-teamism because I may easily go overboard in my arguments for something more petty, according to some. This request got lost in the mess as I hadn't thickened it or anything. If you were gracious you'd let this bit be at the bottom so it can be seen what the request was and was not. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You committed 90% of your text to complaining about users and titled the section about them. This was not about the dubious tag. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Because otherwise it looks like multiple editors removed the dubious and superficially it looks like concensus. I had to prove why it's not. I do get carried away. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The subject of this ANI aside, after being pinged, I can only confirm that after my sourced edit with the historical usage of the word which was trimmed down 90%, I do not touch this entry with a barge pole nor follow its Talk page. Zezen (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• ABAN for Mr. Magoo. On Wikipedia, consensus does not mean keep asking until you get the answer you want. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• But I'm not alone? You have completely misunderstood the situation now. I'm pinging SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢, Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), Kerdooskis, BurtReynoldsy and Martin Hogbin who all voted for often. I'm not asking any of them to talk about what this notice is about but about the fact that they voted for often. Again, I am not alone here. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• And to begin with what am I even supposed to be guilty of this time? Everything is by the book? Talking too much? With the same logic my counter-arguer is just as guilty? Are we all just supposed to agree? That's 1984's version of concensus. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• A crazy witch hunt Mr. Magoo and McBarker is indeed not alone. I have just been banned! for... Talking too much? Editing by the book? Are we all just supposed to agree? That's 1984's version of concensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently they now punish for talking to two people at once at a talk page? I looked at the Talk and you've only been replying to people, nothing else. And they wonder why editors are leaving — these rules are bizarre! To top it all of you were right there because most people have voted NO in the vote. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the rules seem to have changed very much recently. Incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, and even the case of a lone tendentious editor continuing to push his case when everyone else disagrees have always been frowned upon but now we seenm to have a rule against supporting the majority position against a handful of editors now seems to be forbidden. It is all very worrying. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This notice is just about the return of the Dubious tag, not about any actions for the vague teaming. — — I'm moving this at the bottom here again because people posted in this subsection (I shouldn't have made it a subsection). Please post above this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, I am unclear from your postings whether you STILL believe that Aqu Fydd and I are part of some sock/meat/tag arrangement. You seem to be implying that it really isn't important to you any longer and only a tag matters. If that is the case, … a) It is important TO ME, I take great offence at having this accusation thrown around like confetti, literally 100s of times now, towards me and others, despite you having been asked, told and warned many times to either present the evidence or drop it, to 'put up or shut up'. … …b)Are you really saying now that this whole ANI was started by you in order to restore a tag? Without even asking anyone why it was removed? Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I asked people to post above the bit... And vague tag-teamism will obviously lead to nothing as we've already been through. And the whole concept of bad faith is incredibly vague as well because when someone commits blatant vandalism and he is listed here then does the lister not show bad faith? It boggles the mind how the rule is supposed to be applied. And I brought it up this time because the reverts happen in plain team formation. I'd at least expect a discussion first but you always revert before even discussing anymore. You're just stuck to the formation now. The article is dead in the water pretty much. Remember that extra section I wanted to add? The two appeared at the talk who even seemed to support it. But they don't want to argue. You and me are the only ones who have the energy to argue but you've got the backing of a team to vote and revert. The two do pretty much nothing else anymore at the article. How you do imagine it simply feels from my perspective? I try add a well-sourced Baa Baa Sheep of my own but it gets removed instantly. No one wants to edit this article or talk at the talk. I create an RfC not even believing I'll get much support but then I do from all who appear. Yet even then you act like it's not concensus. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention that yes it was supposed to be. It was meant to be one of those short ones but then it grew and grew as a I built my case for the tag. At some point it had grown so big that I couldn't really map it out in my head anymore and that's why it looks a bit messy and broken and it doesn't list the names of the supporters to begin with or something. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Mr. Magoo's answers. The rules are very clear, no personal attacks. The sock/meat/tag accusations will 'obviously lead to nothing' because they are void of any evidence or even much logic, ditto the accusations against the IPs. As far as I can see 'concensus' in your posts (which editors are supposed to have edited against), refers to your own interpretation of the opinion on an unclosed (and very flawed) RfC. Unless the opinions expressed in that RfC were universally, policy-based, evidence based, support, such a personal interpretation by an involved party could not possibly be described as 'concensus'. Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have mostly ceased from personal accusations towards you at the talk ever after the failed SPI (other than when the discussion happened about the removed section which you might remember from me claiming twice that you lied about the time it had been part of the stable version), but I apologize for it being a different matter here at ANI. I explained my reasoning for bad faith with the lister of vandalism example. The lister is automatically guilty himself, is he not? The personal accusations I've made at the talk and which have been presented were towards the IP. I explained how the likelihood of the IPs being the same is close to certain. My intention here was not to re-ignite the team conversation. I have to reiterate that I'm discussing in a foreign language and it takes a considerable amount of brain power just to not mess the grammar up. I'm grateful for you not voting against me and I promise not to bring up the teaming again. You know I hold my promises to the letter. I hope this problem can be solved with my promise. Again, my intention was to focus on the removal of the Dubious tag which I thought I'd be able to win back. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, your promise of good behaviour might be more convincing to me, if similar ones had not been made before: 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.. A promise made on 17th November on a prev ANI, followed on 30th November by the 'baseless' SPI referred to previously and umpteen talk page accusations, including within the RfC plus others saying I lied (which I fairly plainly did not). You admit to starting an ANI in order to get a tag restored (without asking why it was removed, which was for a good reason IMO). Other editors on the page find you impossible to work with and do not consider you an asset. Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but we've already talked about this before. I keep my promises to the letter. I promised when it's overt and not covert and we weren't talking about the team accusation that followed after but the earlier kind. This time it's absolute. And I didn't need to ask why the tag was removed because it was already explained in the edit summaries. And the only other editors other than you who think so are A and F. Where as how many have now agreed with my point of changing the adjective? 6? And look what was written below. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

inappropriate NAC

Please note that I have reverted this wholly inappropriate nac, by a random ip who has made no other edits. A sanction has been proposed and is gaining some support, I don't think the nac was appropriate and frankly find it suspicious. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think it was inappropriate as well. I don't dare to suspect any IPs anymore because apparently it's against the rules. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Though I apologize if this isn't the right noticeboard. I'm not that familiar with "listing rules". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed your link Fyddlestix. (Non-administrator comment) This issue is far larger than just that "primarily" upon which it started. I don't believe it can be solved so simply. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the NAC was incorrect. In my opinion, an incorrect NAC of an RFC is any NAC when the RFC is properly formed and has been running for less than 30 days. The suggestion to take the content dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard would have been a reasonable one if there weren't already an RFC. DRN doesn't accept a dispute that is being resolved elsewhere, such as RFC, and RFC trumps DRN. The IP should be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Apology for the team accusation

I apologize for the team accusation, and I promise not to bring it up again. My intention here was not to bring it up. I brought it up solely as ammunition for my claim of the Dubious tag returnal, but people interpreted this notice to have been about it rather than the Dubious tag. Since it was brought up so casually many people's feelings were hurt, which I apologize for. In the past I have shown that I keep my promises to the letter. This promise is fairly absolute, without leaving doubt. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a history of sometimes making large posts that cover every little aspect over focusing only on the basics, which is why the accusation grew to a big paragraph instead of just a quick quip. I had originally intended it to be a background sidenote, ammunition as I mentioned. But again, I apologize for bringing it up. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

*Comment: As someone who tried to find a compromise and left because it just got too tedious, I have to say there is unfortunate behavior on both sides of this argument. In what should be among reasonable people an easy compromise on content (the use of the word 'often' instead of 'primarily' in a point that is CLEARLY disputed) the editors in agreement with one another have all simply refused to compromise to the point that they have indeed driven off other well-intentioned editors. The complaining editor here loses their cool regularly. And everyone involved seems to be unable to communicate briefly. valereee (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Compromise?

A number of comments above criticise the article editors for 'quibbling' over one word, somewhat unfairly IMO. This is not the place to discuss content matters, so I have started a section on talk to which editors are invited to contribute. I have started this section partly to clarify the problem, but primarily hoping to find some MEANINGFUL way out of the impasse. Pincrete (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, Pincrete, it's just too tedious. You've stated you are categorically opposed to ANY compromise on this single word, and you've made such ridiculously verbose arguments that literally no one can follow them without several days' work. You've won that particular war of attrition with me and multiple others, and frankly if I were to advise Mr. Magoo and McBarker it would be to say 'this isn't worth it. Just let these editors own the article and push their point of view on this.' I may not admire Magoo's general demeanor at times, but I have to credit the stick-to-it-iveness.  :) valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to any compromise conjured from people's heads and not based on the content of the article, nor on sources. What is unacceptable about that position? Especially as there are ways around the problem. If I haven't expressed myself clearly or concisely, why not ask for clarification ?Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, truly -- and I really don't mean to seem disagreeable here, but I can't find another way to say it -- you don't seem capable of conciseness. I'm not singling you out, the same is true for Mr. Magoo and McBarker. I just simply don't have the energy to wade through your arguments about this. I cede the field. You can have Political correctness, as far as I'm concerned, and when readers click onto it and read the lead and say to themselves. "Wait, that's not right, I still hear people using it sincerely all the time," you can explain to them that even though PC is still used on a fairly regular basis nonpejoratively in various places, the fact that no one reports on the nonpejorative use means it must not be a current common usage of the word. You're asking the editors who disagree with you to prove a negative. No one comments on a word being used in its original meaning. They comment when it ISN'T. That doesn't mean words aren't used in their original meanings, it simply means no one sees fit to write about it when it happens. I feel you're using a very narrow reading of wikipedia policy to push your point of view. valereee (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Valeree, I will reply on your talk. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving towards a closure

Can others help in clarifying what is being requested here so we can resolve this? From where I stand, Mr. Magoo and McBarker seems to only want the return of the {{dubious}} tag and claims to have dropped the tag team and other complaints. The dubious tag is in my opinion a content dispute, and one that seems to be moving toward resolution (see linked discussion above). Pincrete seems to take issue with the fact that the tag team and meatpuppet allegations were brought up in the first place (and it seems it's not the first time they've been made). WP:Boomerang was brought up, with EvergreenFir and JzG both suggesting A-bans for Magoo. Since it seems the content dispute is being resolved (and should be resolved) elsewhere, should we discuss ways of resolving the underlying dispute or just close it and move on? If anyone thinks my characterization is wrong, misleading, or leaving out something important, let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally think that an A-ban on Magoo is punishing the wrong person for the wrong thing. Magoo needs to learn how to disagree without becoming disagreeable, but their basic argument about these editors' unwillingness to compromise over content is correct, IMO. valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

valereee, please provide evidence of myself, Aqu or Fydd excluding content unreasonably (not in this section though). This is a 'hot button' topic which is prone to outright vandalism, PoV pushing, OR, 'essay writing' etc. etc. etc.. There is a need to enforce WP guidelines consistently and fairly rigidly, though it should be done courteously, as far as possible. A number of editors above have accused us of excluding content, none has so far offered any proof that this has been done either outside core guidelines or against concencus or uncivilly.Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I have no doubt that your intention is to follow WP guidelines, and that your goal is to produce a great article, but what you're doing is taking the fact that the pejorative use is what's primarily reported on and insisting this is also evidence that it's the primary way the word is being used. Which is why so many new-to-the-article editors keep coming in and going, "Wait, what? That's not correct." valereee (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to correct here, but primarily is not sourced whatsoever. Zero sources exist for it. I just added two sources at talk which specifically define the term as "often derogatory". I had not found these before this point because of the word derogatory instead of pejorative. We are currently standing at a situation of "sourced by two sources" versus "completely unsourced". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, answering on your talk page. valereee (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes Thankyou for naming me. To say that 'it is not the first time' that tag/sock/meat allegations have been made is a sizable understatement, they have been thrown around everywhere for months, as have other PAs and general 'battleground' behaviour. The SPI referred to above was brought at a point that an RfC was not going well for Mr. Magoo. We have an admission here that this ANI was instigated by Mr. Magoo, solely to restore a tag (without any attempt to resolve the matter). I have tried to minimise my involvement on this ANI, preferring that others judge whether this is acceptable behaviour by Mr. Magoo. However, since you have asked, the real subject of this ANI became Mr. Magoo's behaviour and the boomerang almost immediately and I would prefer that it run its course, with closure by an uninvolved party. Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry but no, not in 2016, let alone near the end of 2015. You're thinking about earlier times (time passes by fast). I think you'd be able to point only two diffs from this time period where it's only hinted. And no other PAs outside of that other than towards the obviously same IP who voted twice. The SPI was brought up because of the behavior at the RfC. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You above admit to calling me a liar, several times recently. This ANI itself is a huge, wholly unjustified, PA, brought about (by your own admission) solely to bludgeon a trivial change on the article, and which you backed down on only when the boomerang was invoked. I prefer to let the community decide whether that is acceptable behaviour and an admin to decide appropriate outcome. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you stated that something that had been part of the stable version for years had in your words been stable only for months. I didn't call you a liar. I called it a lie. And I still do request the Dubious tag... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say for years, I said while I had been editing the page, it was said very clearly several times. You repeated 'liar' several times, but have only now today bothered to let me know what the supposed 'lie' was. The pointless accusations against several IPs are as offensive to me as one's against myself. When someone is constantly snarling and shouting abuse in a room, it is no less offensive because one is not the target. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I never once wrote the word "liar". I of course also informed you why it was untrue at the time multiple times. It hurts my feelings when you describe things I never did. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Full story here: from my reply to Wtmitchell, it includes several overt 'tag team' accusations, one of 'you outright and knowingly lied', which I had not. Later when I pointed out to Mr. Magoo that either he was wrong, or I had no idea what he was talking about 'You did obviously lie about Civitas', then I dropped the matter. Yes, all this was late December 2015.

What most concerns me is how easily Mr. Magoo forgives his own abominable behaviour (that was in 2015, so it doesn't count, I only promised to not make accusations about covert puppetry, this was clearly overt (though neither the SPI nor anybody else thinks that there are even grounds for suspicion), I never once wrote the word liar (just an exact paraphrase, twice, which he has never acknowledged or apologised for), I only wanted the tag restored, so of course I started an ANI accusing three editors of a host of crimes for which there was zero evidence, etc. etc. etc.). Mr. Magoo appears to have no sense of how offensive this behaviour is and how counter productive, and thinks we should all 'kiss and make up' simply because he has dropped the ANI. I'm sorry, but I am not persuaded of any sincere intention to change behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is this it? One mention from last year? Do you have even a single diff from this year? I have been well and you should acknowledge that. And do you now agree that you were wrong to have accused me to have called you a "liar" specifically, as I had not used that word? I'm sorry, but you never apologize yourself. And this was sometime after the SPI with the matter still raw. Mind you, you yourself wrote: "I really don't give a s*** about your pathetic defence" (censored the swear word). I even recommended you to calm down after that. And the only reason I brought up the SPI there was because it had been exactly about these original removals from the article way back. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And sorry but I also found it hurtful that after we now had civilly argued on the talk for an hour and then instead of responding to my latest civil argument you came here to badmouth me of something that happened last year. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

'Last year' was 7 weeks ago, this ANI (a gigantic PA instigated because you couldn't bludgeon a tag, was started 7 days ago. I did - and do - look upon your defence of repeating tag/meat/sock accusations and quibbling over 'you outright lied/you're a liar' as pathetic.

I distinguish between the talk page and here, because that's what we always try to do. Talk page is for civil argument about pertinent issues, in which we try to work toward MEANINGFUL compromise. WP:AGF isn't there because we are all nice, and it isn't optional. Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry but no, no it clearly wasn't, unless you for some reason count the entire section. And you call adding a Dubious tag bad behavior? What? Again, 7 people have voted for "often". After it kept getting removed I did what any rational editor would do and noted the removals here. I got carried away with the background and I've apologized for that. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

I previously stated that I think there were underlying issues beyond the content dispute, and this discussion has only reinforced that belief. The underlying problems between editors, regardless of how the content dispute turns out, should be addressed to minimize disruption. As such, I propose the following:

1. Article Ban for Mr. Magoo and McBarker from Political correctness for a period of 3 months, which includes the talk page.
2. Two way Interaction Ban for Magoo and Pincrete for a period of 6 months.

If the consensus talked about exists at Talk:Political correctness, Magoo's absence from the page won't be a problem, and if it doesn't exist then the A-ban should prevent disruption and forum shopping. The I-ban allows for the two editors to still edit the page (once the A-ban is expired) and participate in discussions but will hopefully limit the disruption caused by personal attacks and accusations. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC) A number of comments below have convinced me that this solution probably isn't the best or most effective, so I am withdrawing my support. Wugapodes (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - seems reasonable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Sorry but this is a vast overnuke of a petty situation. Last time I exhibited bad behavior at the article was last year. I ask for diffs of bad behavior from me at the article this year. Look at the last row of edits at Talk:Political correctness. I'm pinging the other editors SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢, Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), Kerdooskis, BurtReynoldsy, Martin Hogbin, Zezen and Valereee to have their say about this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• In addition this ANI already lead to me promising not to accuse the three ever again - an absolute statement. This ANI already lead to a result. This meets their requests. It's either this "aban" or your aban and I believe this would satisfy them a lot more. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, this ANI is evidence of bad behaviour and unfounded accusations made by you in 2016. When the boomerang was invoked, you stopped throwing dirt. You instigated the ANI immediately after this edit, and this edit, both of which boil down to 'if I don't get what I want, watch out'. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can you point diffs? And sorry but there are 7 people who voted for "often" to be placed there. That's not enough for a Dubious tag for you? It kept getting removed so I did what any sane editor would do and listed the removal at ANI. I got carried away with the background but I apologized for that. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried cotting this conversation but apparently that's not okay, so let the masses of text cover the landscape... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not the right way forwards. Conflicts in WP should be resolved by civil discussion. If this does not work there are the options of mediation and the RfC. Both are far from perfect but they are all we have. I suggest that you all concentrate on getting the widest possible participation and finding a good independent experienced admin to close the RfC.
• Regarding the interaction between two editors, why not set up a sub page for that discussion. It has been done before. Both sides must agree to use it in good faith though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose one-sided action, probably any action other than closing RfC properly and moving on. I think an A-ban is excessive, and one should not be imposed in the middle of a content dispute in a lopsided manner, absent serious disruption and bad faith, since it simply ends the dispute in automatic favor of whoever was being slightly more polite, without any regard for the merits of the relative positions being advanced. The accuracy of the content matters more than petting one party for being marginally more civil, and spanking the other. A short-term, mutual I-ban wouldn't hurt, I guess. I share concerns that the regulars at the page are ignoring the rationales presented by RfC respondents, and insisting on having WP:THERIGHTVERSION. Repeated removal of a dispute tag, when the dispute [well beyond its actual importance] dominates the talk page, is inappropriate. What is there to hide? Making poorly evidenced WP:TAGTEAM accusations at ANI isn't helpful either, though. Three people not agreeing with you don't automatically equate to a conspiracy. I'm skeptical this rises to WP:BOOMERANG level. That would be purely punitive at this stage, since Magoo has clearly gotten the point already. Just let the RfC close properly, and that would be facilitated by both sides giving it a rest until then. And whoever is socking from multiple IPs from the same location back-to-back (or meatpupetteering, getting their co-workers to phone in "votes" on their lunch break, whatever the case may be) needs to knock it off or they're going to get blocked, if anyone bothers to make a WP:SSI out of it (that, too, would be overkill at this point; it was a dumb ploy, no one's buying it, and that lesson has probably also been learned).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺, given the subject matter, could I ask you to strike through the 'whoever is socking', I can't speak for Aqu or Fydd, or anyone else, but I live the other side of the globe from Kansas. Also the article and talk are fairly frequently visited by strange 'wiki-savvy IPs', who annoy, but don't affect outcomes, so there may well be an explanation which doesn't involve any editor. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mention anyone in particular. When two IPs show up from right near each other in meatspace to make essentially identical comments back-to-back on an obscure, near-pointless discussion, it is not a coincidence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support as involved party, content dispute aside, neither on talk nor at this ANI has Mr. Magoo shown any serious awareness of how time-wasting, exhausting and counter-productive to his own position his behaviour and tactics are. The content dispute is only solvable within an atmosphere less poisoned by cyclic PA's. Either we mean 'no PA's' or we don't, enough is enough. Pincrete (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as overkill. But advice to Mr. Magoo and McBarker: give up on this article voluntarily. Let someone else take it over from here. I suspect the problem will be resolved more quickly without your input than with it, as there's too much bad blood between you and the other editors, and I believe it is stiffening their resistance to compromise. valereee (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal seems like excessive punishment. However, I agree with valereee that Mr. Magoo and McBarker should think about stepping back for a while. Time away from a project often brings new perspective. Couldn't hurt.Kerdooskis (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose , unless other editors be this article- or topic- banned too. Zezen (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but where are the diffs showing that any of the other involved editors have done anything that is remotely sanctionable or against policy? Topic bans aren't applied out of a sense of fairness or out of a desire to be even-handed, they're applied for disruptive conduct. Where is the evidence of anyone other than Magoo editing disruptively? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support as an involved editor. I understand why some of you are arguing that Mr. Magoo should be given a break - but that's basically where we left this last time it was brought to ANI. Magoo has been warned (and promised to stop) refusing to AGF before, yet here we are again. I think he's out of chances at this point.

I also think this is a pretty clear case of WP:BLUDGEON - Magoo has made about 1300 edits to this single article's talk page, starting numerous different talk page discussions about the same basic subject, and spamming them with lengthy walls-of-text. And I'm not just saying that because I hold a different opinion about the article - when Magoo was taken to 3RR in early February, EdJohnston noted that Magoo's editing tends to follow "a pattern of stubbornness and relentless argumentation" and that "he defends his point of view with great tenacity." At the last ANI report in November, Rhododendrites also noted 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," suggesting that "such intensity, with the evidence of POV-pushing and battleground behavior" was troubling. This is a long-term, stubborn problem. It's not going to fix itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That was 90% about the hounding, as at the time I didn't know such a rule existed against reverting an editor across multiple articles. I were a very new editor back then, used to teenager-level forum arguments. I was warned for the hounding and have done nothing even close since. This has been a growing-up experience. In addition the vague end result left open a big loophole. There's no loophole this time. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This was my perception on the matter. The fact that someone behaved inappropriately at one time does not mean that every concern ever raised about them henceforth is legitimate, entirely legitimate even if partially correct, or requires punitive action.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the paragraph about the numbers of edits: they're mostly WP:TYPO corrections. If you look at my past edits, my edit count is nearly tripled from just all the typo corrections. Edit count means nothing. Pincrete himself has 600 edits to the talk page, in total messages most likely the same amount as me. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the interaction ban. These two editors dislike each other to the point where they will probably try to provoke violations of the interaction ban. I am not expressing an opinion on a topic ban, but I might consider a two-way topic ban as better than an IBAN, which are often gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't dislike Mr. Magoo, I despise the methods he uses to get what he wants and to make his presence felt. I would not oppose any proposed two-way topic ban. Doing good to the article is meant to take precedence over being fair to the individual, therefore I'd rather see an ANI which actually did something than one which simply 'fudged the issue', which several previous ones have done. Pincrete (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I think that's a very admirable outlook, putting the good of the article before your own ability to influence its shape, and especially being willing to suffer a community sanction to effectuate that outcome if that would be the best outcome for the article. But surely if you are willing to make that sacrifice, you can see your way towards a compromise on the issue of a single word, especially if it means preserving two active editors for the article who can do much to improve it beyond that one sentence. Do you really think that Mr. Magoo's influence on the talk page is so disruptive that this is the best solution amongst those proposed? Do you really want to endorse this approach without giving DRN or some similar process a go? Are you really willing to pull back entirely from the article, even if it means someone else might pick up Mr. Magoo's outlook on the content and push forward on it? I'm trying to understand your motivations here so we can tell if this is really the best possible solution of limited options, which would be difficult (thought not impossible) for me to accept. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Snow, I proposed compromises on both the RfC's relating to this piece of trivia. I make it clear in my answer to the present RfC that I felt I was being unfairly forced to make a choice. I admit to having reacted negatively to a constant barrage of bludgeon (acres of irrelevant sources, which I suspect no voter actually read) and that may have influenced my negative vote, hardened my position. This ANI is not about one word, for which sourceable, non-contentious by-passes are available that should satisfy everyone. It is about user-behaviour over an extended period, Mr. Magoo made it about that. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but the "often" is a compromise. It wasn't my first stance nor my second, nor was it brought up by me. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• STRONG Oppose to IBAN I don't know how many years we have to deal with the fallout of unworkable IBANs before we rework the wording to WP:IBAN and fundamentally alter our approach on the matter, but here's the long and short of it for those who don't spend a lot of time at ANI or in dispute resolution broadly: IBANs do not (as in never) work in situations where the parties must share a close editorial environment, such as when they work on an article with few other editors to offer a buffer between them or to flesh out the consensus process. Point in fact, IBANs almost never work in general, for a variety of reasons, but when they are imposed for editors who both refuse to disengage from a given topic matter, the IBAN itself becomes a gravity well of the magnitude of a blackhole, sucking in countless volunteer hours as the combatants spar from a distance and lodge unceasing allegations at ANI or elsewhere about one or the other violating the ban. It's really simple: if these parties were incapable of working together collaboratively when they could directly communicate, why would they be any more efficient after they can only passive-aggressively circumvent one-another's contributions? If you want to understand where this issue will end up after an IBAN, try looking at the AN/ANI record for the Catflap08/Hijiri88 dispute, a matter that ultimately (and recently) had to be handled by ArbCom because our approach to it here was so shortsighted. No, no, no, a thousand times no to this proposed IBAN. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN. As to the TBAN for Mr. Magoo, I just don't see it being justified. Don't get me wrong, I think Magoo probably has acted at least a little tendentiously, but not any more so than his "opposition" on that talk page. And maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like he did indeed have a consensus to at least budge the wording of that lead statement a little in terms of the absoluteness of the adjective in question. Which is not to say that this whole dispute isn't petty in the extreme; any benefit to the article gained from making that statement slightly more precise has been massively outweighed at this point by the number of volunteer hours consumed debating the point on that talk page (and the fallout here). And Mr. Magoo probably deserves a boomerang trouting at the least for filing this discussion following previous efforts at ANI and SPI. And indeed, he should be made aware that it's likely going to be more than a trouting next time.

But all of that said, it looks as if both sides of this dispute are showing some embarrassment above about how they have let this issue spiral out of control. I suggest we close this discussion, advise the parties to pursue WP:DRN or another route of mediation and make it clear that the ban hammer is coming down hard on someone if they can't make this work. (That goes equally for Pincrete as for Mr. Magoo, as the former is showing intractability equally as odious as the latter's verbosity). For what it's worth, a few years ago I probably would have agreed with Pincrete whole-heartedly, but my observation is that many academics now use the term in a more neutral fashion; how that shifts the balance of "often" vs. "primarily" is open for debate, especially with weak secondary sourcing, but I think there must be an unexplored middleground here. Seriously guys, there's a lot of adjectives on this spectrum; get out a thesaurus and see what you can't agree on. Both sides of this dispute seem populated by editors smart enough to know how embarrassing it would be to get a community sanction over this nonsense. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

New/Revised Proposal

Reading through the comments on the previous proposal, I've been convinced the previous proposal may not have been effective and may have been overkill. It seems, from the opposes that most people think a stern warning is sufficient, though SMcCandlish at least hinted at the option of a proper closing of the RfC. So what are people's thoughts on the following:

1. The RfC be closed (either by an admin or willing, experienced editor. Commentors should probably indicated a preferenance)
2. All parties get a stern warning and are advised to work more collaboratively.

I'm not sure if it's typical for the first one to be proposed, or who we'd get to do it if there's support (any volunteers?) but I think it's an interesting option that could cool down the dispute, considering the RfC has been running for 3 months and seems to be the flashpoint for a lot of the issues raised. Wugapodes (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that closing the RfC should be a priority, since all the involved parties have clearly had opportunity to say their peace and a formal close should help to resolve this matter. The parties here do not seem altogether unreasonable and certainly don't seem to be bad-faith actors in general; it seems they've just become entrenched or carried away in turns. I hope the "losing" party or parties will therefore abide by the closure finding, in the best interests of the article. Further, (and I wouldn't suggest this in the vast majority of ANI discussions, as it wouldn't be feasible in most) I also recommend the involved parties openly recognize the good-faith motivations of the other side. I think you're all going to see this as a series of hyper-reactive decisions when you get some distance and perspective from the argument, so why not try to bury the hatchet now and try to develop a better working relationship? This article is important and could benefit from its principle editors viewing eachother in a more positive light. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. No evidence has been offered anywhere in this ANI of any bad behaviour by either Aquillion or Fyddlestyx, not even minor incivility. I don't ask anyone to prove that I may have 'taken the bait' sometimes myself, so should the ANI select this option, I'm not going to argue about myself, but the 'stern warning' should have the courage to name people and specify their 'faults'. If we have to revisit anyone's user behaviour in 6 weeks time, it would be useful to have a record of what was concluded here. Closure of the RfC is problematic, the RfC was a near repeat of a previous one, it was instigated without discussion on talk, it was bedevilled in its early days by a discreditted SPI and other considerations. I think closure, should be by a very competent person and that these factors should be noted, regardless of its outcome. Don't object to either option though re. who to close. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support a proper, choosing closure to the matter. What has proven most problematic is the constant back-and-forth bickering, over a petty matter. This would solve nigh everything. The matter is even easy to solve as new, colossus-like sources have been brought forth. There also exists a broad concensus by votes. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I agree with Pincrete that whatever warnings are given need to be specific, and frankly I doubt anyone wants to do that research; I sure don't. :D Nothing I've seen on any of these editors' parts makes me believe they're doing anything worse than losing their tempers, and quite frankly I've come close myself. I'm not sure the RfC should be closed yet, as there are currently new discussions of alternate solutions to the issue. Sorry to not give support to either of your solutions; this ill-considered ANI probably just needs to go away. valereee (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure no offence was intended, but remind that no evidence of even minor wrongdoing has been offered re: Aqui and Fydd. Their only 'crime' is that they take a different position in an RfC, which they base on their knowledge of the sources, also they and I think that the RfC should not be implemented until properly closed. An offer by S Marshall to close that RfC was made on 12th Feb, Mr Magoo delayed matters for over a week deciding whether he objected to him closing, probably it would otherwise now be closed. Me lose my cool? Irony? Sarcasm? Probably. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, thank you for assuming no offense was intended. I was trying too hard not to name names (and thereby call out people for behavior I don't clearly remember and wasn't interested in researching) that I inadvertently possibly seemed to be including unspecified minor bad behavior on the parts of any number of people. I agree with you that I have no recall of even minor wrongdoing on the parts of either Aqui or Fydd, whom I won't ping here as you haven't been. My apologies to both. valereee (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Except for edit warring for which a warning was issued... And Marshall courteously asked if anyone has anything to say about him closing and I pointed out some mistakenly deduced summarizations he had made before about stances... And for some days now he's simply been on a long break. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, you had a perfect right to seek clarification or to object to the offer from SMarshall to close the RfrC. But it isn't very rational to be the cause of a delay on closure and at the same time either get frustrated about the delay (which everyone is), or, (worse in my opinion), to pre-judge what that closure will be. Either we all wait for closure or we don't.Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• The closure of the RfC depends on one editor out of all of Wikipedia? Who happens to be taking a break? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support with clarification: I don't think any warning needs to be "stern", though it does need to be specific. This minor spat has not actually been very disruptive, just tedious. Pincrete is correct on both points; the close should be careful, and ANI should not issue gameable warnings to people who don't deserve them. The closure is long overdue. Valereee is correct in noting continued discussion, but I'm skeptical that it's productive, or as productive as it should be. It would make sense to close the RfC so that discussion can be productive instead of trying to work at RfC-related angles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I support subject to the closer taking note of the 'user-targetted' suggestions about warnings which I make in my comment above (which are broadly endorsed by Valereee and SMcCandlish). Let's close this and get on with something useful.Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I'm not sure of procedure and votes here aren't many, but would it be appropriate to ask for a close based on 1) no substantial opposition to your proposal here 2) warnings be issued as the person closing sees fit (a slightly modified version of your 2nd point, endorsed by 3 of the 5 voters, inc myself.) Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I'm sure an admin or experienced editor will close it at an appropriate time. I can imagine an open ANI isn't a fun thing to have hanging over your head, but things move slowly sometimes and it's only been a few days. I trust that the admins and experienced editors here will close it when it needs to be closed. Wugapodes (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes:, thanks for reply, no I wasn't nervous for myself, just unsure as to whether anything needed to be done.Pincrete (talk)13:19, 26 February 2016

Possible veiled threat by IP editor on my user talk page

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

A few hours ago, I received a series of weird messages on my user talk page (and I replied to them as well). Here's the diff of the full exchange [39]. The whole thing reads like some kind of a veiled threat (disguised as a caring voice) to discourage me from editing any articles about politicians connected to the ruling party in Singapore. (For context, ISD refers to Internal Security Department (Singapore) which can detain people without a trial). Looking back, I realize that at the time when I received the messages, I was coincidentally also involved in a (heated) discussion at Talk:Calvin Cheng (an article about a Singaporean politician).

I am not sure how to react to this since I am a relatively new editor (3 months). I would have loved to forget the whole incident, but after reading WP:NPA, I am erring on the side of caution and reporting it. While the threat might just have been frivolous, it still worries me since it involves my offline life. I do not want to open myself (or my family) up for harassment by the government. I'm not sure of what steps to take further and would be glad to receive some advice. In addition, is there any way to check if this IP is a sockpuppet being used to harass me?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Those messages are beyond weird. I don't know if this follows WP:NPA, WP:NLT or WP:COI. I have replied to the IP if that's okay with you. Also, you forgot to notify the IP about the ANI thread. I have done so for you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Thank you for your help and support. Apologies for not notifying the IP involved. Yup, it is perfectly fine to reply on my talk page. The reason I did not reply any more to the IP was because I was feeling a bit distressed at that moment.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I believe the intent is for you to be distressed. Therefore, it appears as an attempt to create a WP:CHILLING EFFECT applied in the form of a threat on your personal safety. That is unacceptable. I advise that you be careful in editing, but do not stop editing unless there is substantial reasoning as to why not, so long as it does not exist in the form of a threat. If you feel a strong threat to your own personal safety, do not hesitate to contact emergency@wikimedia.org -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please note that the likelihood of that being necessary is incredibly low. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're wise to report it, and should always exercise caution editing biographies. From looking at the histories, I'd be tempted to wonder if it might be 203.125.172.2 (talk · contribs) and 59.189.180.12 (talk · contribs) hopping onto their mobile phone. More than tempted actually.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure you could listen to this. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• IP has been given a warning about giving threats on Wikipedia. Further threatening comments from that IP (or in that IP range) should be treated with WP:RBI, or WP:NLT given their context. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Voidwalker: Thank you. This seems good for the moment. In case any further harassment attempts are made, I will let you know.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Voidwalker:@Callmemirela:@Zzuuzz: Update: I thought to mention these incidents since I am not sure if these constitute WP:NPA. In addition, I have a strong feeling that there seems to be a certain amount of collaboration among the IPs/users involved.

• Personal attacks [40],[41]
• Exchanges on my talk page: [42],[43] (One of the accounts seems newly created and looks like it has been going through my edit history and reverting my changes in other articles [44],[45])
• Reply by IP but the reply seems as if it is written by an existing user who logged out and is doing IP editing. See reply by IP [46] and previous replies by a logged in user [47],[48]

Is there any way to find if this is being done individually or as a group?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, but if it looks like a duck .... I would think you could benefit from a little discreet help from a CheckUser, or alternatively put together a list of what's going on and who's saying what, as you're probably in a better position to do that. There's a lot to read there. On the plus side, it's looking increasingly like basic sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. You should assume these IPs and any new accounts are one and the same, imo. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've redacted the more pressing NPA violations on Talk:Calvin Cheng, and I agree completely with zzuuzz -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree too except for the fact that CheckUsers generally don't (can't) link IPs to accounts. Not saying an WP:SPI shouldn't be filed anyway with enough evidence, just cautioning against expecting miracles. I personally just hope that people are not in good faith swayed by the amount of warnings Lemongirl942 has on her user page, because whether or not these editors are one and the same, there definitely does seem to be unwarranted belligerency against her. LjL (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have redacted the misusage of the templates by both the IP and RobotRat. I gave the user (not IP) a warning about the issue of templates. To me they are just sockpuppets so perhaps checkuser would be useful and possibly a temporary protection of your talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the veil has been lifted, thanks to zzuuzz's suggestion. RobotRat and Aricialam are blocked as socks. Lemongirl942 has our sympathy for the harassment they had to endure. Please report any further incidents to a friendly admin--I suggest zzuuzz since they have more experience with this than I do, and are more friendlier. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Update 2: Thank you so much everyone. That was surely a relief. I will keep a lookout for any further attempts of sockpuppetry/harassment.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

True, it's a relief that I don't need to have "my motives" put under question when I try to file a SPI upon clear encouragement from multiple editors including administrators anymore, as this seems to have been handled. Good job. LjL (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: more possible veiled threats in the same vein as the original one coming here. Both this address (180.255.240.107) and the address originally making the possible threats (14.100.132.155) appear to not only belong to Singapore, but both specifically to SingTel Mobile. LjL (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the talkpage for 2 weeks. SQL^{Query me!} 10:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Spinoff

I observed many complaints of POV / Recentism / Sync / and other issues. Examples here, here, here, here, here, etc. I submitted an edit to begin to address these issues through better use of transclusion. This dispute may best be resolved by an editor that is very familiar with transclusion.

A few editors are blocking the edit without providing reasonable arguments. I tried to work with others' concerns, but it seems I'm being stonewalled. I've asked for explanations, supporting Wikipedia policies, etc. The response is generally something vague/nebulous like "you can't do that" or "we have to approve your changes first" I've tried to alter the edit to better accommodate and still stonewalled with non-arguments that tend to violate consensus Wikipedia policy.

Here is the article before my edit. Here is the article after my edit. As you can see, they are essentially identical (the main Donald Trump article reads essentially the exact same). Here is the diff. I have taken all content within Donald_Trump#Politics, copied it to the new Politics of Donald Trump article, and transcluded that content right back into the main Donald Trump article with the {{:Politics of Donald Trump}} tag.

I should note that my first attempt had more targeted transclusion to better clear up some of the Sync and other issues I mentioned, but I compromised to help clear these editor objections.

Since the response from the few editors in the talk are largely non-arguments, I'm having trouble knowing what their objections might be or how to address. Maybe it's something else. Hard to say. To condense the talk, here's a quick summary:

• One editor has accused me of WP:BLANKING which is clearly not the case... content is transcluded.
• One editor said the edit creates a WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT issue, again clearly not the case with transclusion.
• One editor accused me of edit warring when I edited, reverted once, and created a different edit to better accommodate their concerns. view history

The editors involved:

• CometEncke
• Objective3000
• MrX
• Somedifferentstuff

I'd like to get a neutral party to either help guide me or help guide the others or both. I believe my bold and good faith edit improves the article. I also believe others' reverts are violating wikipedia policy such as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:IDHT and essays like WP:DRNC and WP:ROWN which are the consensus of wikipedia. I'm trying to build further consensus, but feel stonewalled. Otherwise, if I am in the wrong, I'd really appreciate gaining some understanding so I can do a better job editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You attempted to move large swaths of material into a sub-article, and then transclude it back into the main article. Technically, the content is still available to readers of the main article, but now has primacy in the sub-article. This creates several issues and is not the way biographies of politicians are usually written on Wikipedia. There needs to be consensus for removing the substantial contributions of several editors from the Donald Trump article—an article which is read more than 200,000 times each day. Try seeking compromise and please listen to the legitimate concerns of your fellow editors. - MrX 02:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any idea of transclusion as a way of organizing content. That is fundamentally counter to policy here. People should not have to solve layers of code to figure out where the actual text is. An actual split is splitting the article contents into a separate page and making this a summary here. Just removing it and transulating it solves literally nothing. The talk page shows the opposition to the idea and if you try it again, you will be blocked as it is wildly disruptive. I'm redirecting Politics of Donald Trump until there is actual consensus for such a split. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Question: Is this kind of transclusion used anywhere in Wikipedia article space? I know we use it extensively in e.g. AFD, but I can't recall ever seeing it done with article content.--Jahaza (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm against it but Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 does it. Strangely enough, the Republican page doesn't. As you can see, the page's references are entirely screwed up and don't appear but that's been a problem there for a while because of a refusal to remove anything. This is not a good example for what Trump's page should become. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Yourmanstan has been attempting to make a very large change (over 50,000 characters) to one of the most viewed pages on WP (most viewed one week in Dec) , at a very sensitive time (on the day of a primary) without discussion. He is has done this three times and been reverted three times by three different editors. The article is currently under discretionary sanctions. The only efforts that I have seen by this editor toward consensus is rattling off long lists of WP guidelines, many of them off-point. I suggest that he try to gain consensus. I also suggest that he stay off of ANI as it could WP:boomerang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Insults & reverts

When trying to make orderly edits, I'm being stalked by User:BilCat who reverts even small housekeeping edits. When questioned, he doesn't explain his reverts, he deletes any respectful questions, and employs insults, e.g. using the term "sanctimonious prick" rather than explaining his apparently pointless reverts. In his talk page, he's been claiming illness for the last 10 years or so, so I'm not sure what kind of illness he's experiencing, nor if this is an explanation for his petty and abusive actions.Santamoly (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Santamoly, please provide plenty of WP:DIFFs to back up your accusations, otherwise your accusations will be dismissed out of hand. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In Jamaica, it looks like Santamoly added a citations to Wikipedia, and BilCat tagged it, and Bgwhite removed it. Santamoly then went back to article and re-added the citation to a Wikipedia article, but this time in the form of an embedded link. Citing the manual of style, BilCat removed the embedded link and converted it into a {{see also}}. There also seems to be a minor dispute between the same two people in Dr. No, where the same thing played out: Santamoly breaks the MOS and adds poorly-sourced information, and BilCat cleans up with a terse edit summary. It looks like BilCat likes the MOS, and Santamoly doesn't even know we have one. This probably could have been amicably resolved with better communication. I'd suggest BilCat avoid calling people pricks and maybe try to better help less-experienced editors understand why their edits were reverted/revised. But, Santamoly, you shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a source; see WP:V and WP:RS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ah well. Thanks, Ninjaetc., for your analysis, which I agree with. This edit is fun: Santamoly is serious, I think, when they say "Are you well enough to discuss?" but is being silly when they say "you'll delete discussion on your Talk Page in an apparent effort to hide your activities"--someone who's been here for seven years should know that there's no "hiding", and they should probably know how to link to a Wikipedia article. But it wasn't just "prick": it was "sanctimonious prick", and the question itself, basically "what did I do wrong", is quite valid. BilCat: you are being very unhelpful and as the more experienced editor you should really rise above this level. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm alarmed that you all seem to be suggesting that it's OK to aggressively delete/revert without discussion, and call another editor a "sanctimonius prick" when asked for discussion. Not just a simple "prick", but a "SANCTIMONIUS prick". Am I reading you all correctly? In the case at hand, the MOS doesn't say that an article must not use WP as a source; it does suggest that there may be times when a WP source is legitimate, e.g. in this case, when citing a "List". The only List of Jamaican Films in the entire universe is on Wikipedia. But questioning the revert is no reason for User:BilCat to call me a "sanctimonius prick". What's the next step from User:BilCat - personal threats? How am I to gauge what kind of illness User:BilCat might be suffering? Is it a mental illness? Is he a violent person? Since his illness has been going on for more than a decade, does that mean I have to step around his aggression and limit my contributions to Wikipedia until he's done with his "illness"? In today's case, I feel personally menaced by somebody calling me a "sanctimonius prick" in public. What else is BilCat up to on Wikipedia? Nothing good happens in Wikipedia when editors are permitted to be revert anonymously and to be aggressively abusive. That's why I'm asking for your assistance here. Santamoly (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely none of your business what sort of illness I suffer, and to be honest your attempts coerce me to violate my privacy are more serious than calling you a name, and a quite tame one at that. The edit notice regarding the illness states "BilCat is experiencing health issues that may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, this user may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated." It's a standard message that someone created, and though the first sentence is somewhat vague, the second one clearly limits its scope to responding to messages in a timely manner. That's all - it's not an excuse for anything else, nor an invitation to pry into personal matters, especially in the way you did it, as Drmies pointed out. One thing I can promise you: If you can't handle someone deleting you edits (with edit summaries, which are explanations), or calling you a relatively mild name, then you won't be able to handle some of the genuine problem users on Wikipedia, and should probably look for another hobby. - BilCat (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I ought to say a few more things here, but I'll try to keep things short. I lost my temper when I called the user a "sanctimonious prick". I don't generally call people such names, however well-deserved I may think them, and my nearly 10 years of editing history, all under this username, will show. I will try not to do that again in the future, as it is a personal attack, and there's no excuse for it. I've tried to disengage from interacting with this user on several occasions, but he doesn't seem to get that, in spite of the fact it's explained in the notes on my talk page. I could say a lot more, but honestly it'd be a waste of time. As to the false accusations of stalking, I have extensive editing history on all the pages where we interacted except for Dr. No. In those edits, I was genuinely trying to improve his edits per the MOS, but in hindsight they were probably better left alone. The Antonov situation is a different and complicated one, as it involves the Russian media's reports on the company's demise. Once the user made it clear he rejected Antonov's own rebuttal of the Russian claims, I judged that there was no use discussing the situation any further, and I stopped editing the claims of Antonov's demise. I had hoped the Jamaica-related edits would be different, as it doesn't involve the Russia-Ukraine disputes, but I was wrong. I'm not going to stop editing the Jamaica page, but I will avoid interacting with this user to the best of my ability, and not revert his edits. I only ask that he stay off my talk page. - BilCat (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Looks like we're done here, since no WP:DIFFs were provided by the OP, and in fact BilCat or anybody is likely to use a somewhat rude edit summary on their own talk page when frustrated with someone who repeatedly doesn't really know what they are doing. I suggest that this thread be closed, unless Santamoly wants to stick around for a WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverts and unrespectful behaviour by User:Tuvixer

User:Tuvixer is showing an unrespectful behaviour "editing" the article Josip Broz Tito‎. Tuvixer keeps reverting a modification (i.e the user opposes the insertion of a reference to the repression of political opponents during Tito's regime) in spite of the large consensus found in the Talk page. Please note that this user has shown in the past the same behaviour. User:Silvio1973,User:Peacemaker67 and User:GregorB tried in vain to convince Tuvixer to recognise the existing consensus. Additionally Tuvixer wrote that I am disgusting [[49]] and obsessed [[50]]. Perhaps such behaviour per se does not justify any sanction or any warning, but on the other hand it is abstronomically difficult to deal with him. And after all, am I supposed to be called disgusting and obsessed? Silvio1973 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, Tuxiver didn't say you were disgusting--"because of users like you I am sometimes disgusted with Wikipedia", though they did call you a "baby". But that was 7 January, as is the other edit. Now, I do not believe that there is a clear consensus on the talk page to replace the one clunky POV-ish sentence with another, and have no choice but to consider that both of you are edit warring. BTW, that conversation on the talk page, Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#RfC_January_2016, is interesting. Didn't know Obama was worse than Tito! It must be those death panels. Seriously, if y'all want to make some kind of statement about a general view, it won't do to cite one particular scholar saying "Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator" unless that one source has some particularly reliable overview of all scholarly sources. Also, it begs the question of what "most" is. Most scholars? Most Yugoslavians under Tito's rule? Most...Albanians? Both versions are just not good examples of encyclopedic writing. A new, better RfC should be proposed. Or send the thing to ArbCom, why not. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The only user who is ignoring the talk page and the RfC is Silvio1973. He has edited the article many times without consensus, and when he is confronted in the talk page he backs up, but after a month comes back to the article and makes the same unexplained edit, well maybe hoping that it will not be contested this time. Silvio you do not own the article, and there has been no consensus on that RfC. The RfC ended a month ago, and now you are just trying to ignore the whole discussion, that is shameful. Again there is no consensus, so no "large consensus" this user is speaking about. User Silvio1973 has a tendency to back up when he is confronted with facts, and then, after the discussion has ended, he comes back to the article, makes some changes, and acts like nothing was discussed before. It is really frustrating and unproductive to have such user in a discussion. He ignores the facts and now he is again trying to bully me. Well that is not how Wikipedia works. I have been offline for a couple of days, and when I got online again I found that the article has been changed by Silvio1973, even though the RfC has ended a month ago, not in his favor. It was really awful to see that he tried to push his own opinion into the article just because I was not online for a couple of days. I have the right to speak the truth! It is very frustrating to work on Wikipedia when you have a user like Silvio who is trying to bully you. Anyone can read the talk page of the article, and anyone can see that the discussion ended almost a month ago, and that there was no consensus about what was proposed. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also Drmies confirms this article is seriously POV. But this is not the issue. The issue Tuvixer is that you have to learn to better deal with other users. Your behavior is not acceptable. I am not your baby and I am not obsessed (to quote your words). Respect me as I respect you. I never dealt with you improperly. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm involved, so I am only commenting here as someone who has an interest in the article and has !voted on the poorly-worded RfC, not as an admin. IMO this article is not neutral, and Silvio's RfC was a good faith attempt to insert some balance into what is mostly a hagiographical article at present. Tuvixer's behaviour is problematic, as they apparently will not countenance any negative material being inserted into the article, and certainly not the lead, regardless of how well sourced it may be. However, this is not the forum. What is needed is the addition of reliably sourced material into the article body of the less savoury aspects of Tito's rule, and then a summary of that material being reflected in the lead in the usual way. I don't think this is in ARBMAC territory yet, and encourage the editors involved to look at inserting material about human rights violations by Tito's regime into the article body as a first step. If that proves impossible due to stonewalling, then perhaps it should go to ARBMAC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, if the offending edit added "several concerns raised about the respect of human rights" and this had to be removed, and if the strongest term used in the introduction is "authoritarian", and if according to our article he was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator"--if that is what the introduction to our article on this dictator says (dictator, unqualified: [51], [52], [53]), then yeah there are some POV issues, and maybe it's a good thing that this thread is up at ANI; maybe some other editors will taken an interest in this article. Just sayin'. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 sorry, but that is just not the case. I was just saying that the wording is poor, and that in the same sentence it is already stated that he was criticized as authoritarian, and that there is no point in adding something to that especially prosecution of opponents, because that is also authoritarian. It is like saying that "Tito was criticized as authoritarian, and concerns about him being authoritarian have been raised", which is a nonsense. I had no objection when Silvio1973 added content to the article body. Everyone can see that the lead is full with citations. That is because users like Silvio want to change only the lead, and do no contribution to the article body. Why is that so, I don't know. I am not against stating that he was criticized as authoritarian, just against repeating the same thing in the same sentence. It is problematic that user Silvio1973 does not follow the rules, he introduces changes to the article without consensus, you can see that in the article history. Examples: [Let's see if it flies], [tentative proposal], everyone can see what he was doing. Still when there was an ongoing discussion he edited the article without any pardon. How is this productive when an user constantly tries to push his own bad wording in the article? How can you work with a person who constantly engages in an edit war? The RfC ended a month ago, and then all of a sudden he comes back to it and proclaims, as a dictator, that the RfC is over and that he has a consensus, ignoring the whole discussion about the matter. How is that productive? It it really irritating and unproductive to have such user, who obviously breaks the rules with intent. Everyone knows that when there is a discussion about something on the talk page that you do not edit anything about the topic of the discussion until it is resolved. He ignores the discussion and anyone can see that. Also to add, I have asked him nicely many times, almost begged him not to edit war, bud he ignored that and started to edit war anyway. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies, this article on Josip Broz Tito‎ is POV to the verge of the indecency. And I would welcome your help to correct this issue. I have tried in the past but I faced the strong opposition of some users (go through the archive to get convinced). Does not matter how solid and abundant are the sources, there are 2 or 3 users (Tuxiver being one of those) refusing categorically any edit containing the smaller criticism to Tito. But I have not posted this ANI for this reason. I posted the ANI because Tuvixer's behavior is problematic, unrespectful and provocative. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your wording; of all articles of this kind, this is the worst I've seen. What I do not see is unacceptable behavior, though I see problematic behavior. Sorry; I understand you're frustrated, but this thread is not the way to fix the problems there. The article needs more, more experienced editors, and the way forward is, I think, through some well-defined RfCs. But maybe a peer review can be helpful as well--you might could check at Wikipedia:Peer review and see if someone is crazy enough to help you out. Or maybe post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. There's ways. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well Drmies, what do you think to leave a post on the Talk page of the article to share your concern? This would definitely help.Silvio1973 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, my concern is that Silvio1973 is the poster child of a civil POV-pusher. In fact, I've observed the same behavior of his for years, and I don't remember an article where it is not exhibited. His modus operandi, with slight variations, is 1) Silvio has an opinion on something, usually controversial 2) He inserts that opinion in an inappropriate place in an article with flimsy sourcing, not considering the big picture 3) When reverted, he starts an endless debate, then seeks outside opinions, opening RFCs, running to multiple forums such as ANI 4) if the tactics fail, he will revisit the issue several months later, hopefully with different players involved.
Yeah, maybe he has a point that Josip Broz Tito article is unbalanced, but his suggestion to "fix it" by inserting one sentence in the lead is ridiculous; his approach never results in making an article actually better, it just rehashes the same stuff ad nauseam and annoys pretty much everyone involved.
One needs not to search far in the past to find an example: for example, the debate at Talk:Marco Polo#Extensive modification bordering to good faith disruption as recent as Feb 1, is one of closest to WP:CHEESE I've seen in actual encyclopedia. I'm pretty impressed that Crovata managed to keep his cool. No such user (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that said, he just reverted and re-reverted what appears to me to be quite a reasonable edit of Josip Broz Tito by Zoupan. There has to be some WP:OWN going on here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No such user, the article Josip Broz Tito is not simply unbalanced, it is actually indecent. The concern is that it is actually owned by a couple of users. Now, the reason of this ANI is another. The reason is that Tuvixer is problematic and unpolite. Tuvixer reverts whatever he does not like and does not even try to discuss (now he's doing the same with Zoupan). However, I am not obsessed and I am not Tuvixer's baby. Please find one (just one) post where I dealt with Tuxiver in un unpolite manner and after we will discuss. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

harassment of dual-licensed professional photographer content by User:Stefan2

Ugh, I thought this whole thing was resolved when @Nyttend: put a notice on my talk page so I didn't have to send a billion OTRS notices for every one of my photographs I uploaded to Wikipedia. Now that I have accumulated over 500 edits, is the harassing behavior by User:Stefan2 by tagging over half a dozen of my photographs as possibly unfree content really necessary? See Could I get some intervention and quick closure at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 February 23 please? Why is this harassing behavior still allowed to happen to established editors?

Also, why does Stefan2 argue "there is no evidence that the uploader and the Flickr user are the same person" when the combination of a Pinyin first name and a Wade–Giles last name is actually a very rare combination -- for such a name combination to be exactly the same is an extremely strong match. Such an argument by Stefan2 shows a clear case of white privilege and systemic bias, as well as really strong cultural insensitivity. In addition, he didn't appear to look at my user page, or my photography style, or my flickr page, or attempt to look at what defined me as an artist, at all. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove the OTRS pending tag? Did you send permission to OTRS? If not, honestly, the deletion of File:Speeding J train on the Williamsburg Bridge.jpg is probably correct. Standard practice now, because of some historical problems, is to require the owners of previously published works to indicate that they are who they say they are and make it clear they still have the rights to the photo (i.e., they didn't exclusively license it to someone else). That your name is unique isn't really relevant to our practices: Historically there have been issues with people claiming to be someone who they are not. Respectfully, I don't see any indication of white privilege, though perhaps I'm the wrong person to be looking for it. (all that said, I love the contrast on that photo... it'd be a shame not to have it) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I was told that having established my identity for some of my images on Wikipedia, I didn't have to establish my identity for each and every one of my photographs on Wikipedia. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be agreed that your identity has been verified, but you cannot expect all patrollers to notice that a link has been proved when the only notice of such is on your userpage. Either the Wikipedia or Flickr file description page needs to mention it or it's just not going to be noticed, and so the files will get tagged for deletion. BethNaught (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

They should actually check the identity of the user without lazily tagging the image and sending me messages on my talk page, otherwise they're no different than a bot? That's common courtesy? That's what userpages are for? I pour and invest artistic effort into my photography. I write brief expositions on my user page. Stefan2 could have at least read my userpage before saying there was no evidence linking the identities of my Flickr account and my Wikipedia account. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not I agree with you, the fact is that some patrollers will not check your user page, they won't get reprimanded (at least if they didn't know you before), and this cycle will repeat. If you don't want to go through OTRS, just add something like this to the file description page: "see the links on my user page for confirmation I own this Flickr account". BethNaught (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Just my two cents; you could explicitly state that you are dual licensing each and every single one of your photos or whatever you're doing, as your userpage is unclear. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If you own the website, you may consider re-licensing the websites/images/selected images (if you own copyright of these) under CC SA license, and make sure to write on the website page's license/content reuse policy. While uloading you may refer the license page of the website. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't wish to do that. I am pursuing a dual license strategy where Wikipedia is free to use my images, and people who discover my images through Wikipedia are free to use my images, and so on and so forth, and if it breaks out through that route or whatever, I have no control -- but if people contact me through my website, I can still keep my business through my website and through Flickr. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that I take a look at this, it seems the problem is that User:Yanping Nora Soong posts images to Flickr under a restrictive license by default, and doesn't wish to change the settings on Flickr for those images... something having to do with her professional business. She then chooses images to upload to Wikipedia and does so, but does not want to go through the trouble of sending an OTRS email for the images that she does upload. I'm not sure a notation on the userpage would be good enough for OTRS purposes... at the very least a patrolling editor is going to hit these images from time to time and just not see it. The standard practice is for an OTRS ticket when there's a prior restrictive publication. I don't know if they allow a generic "Everything on my Flickr now and that I ever post there, that I also upload to Wikipedia myself, is licensed as follows" at OTRS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What we need, per WP:IOWN, is a statement on Flickr that the Flickr and Wikipedia accounts belong to the same person. A statement on Wikipedia that the two accounts belong to the same person is insufficient. Nyttend's diff contains a link to Flickr where such a statement is being made. However, this statement was not mentioned on the file information pages of the tagged file, so I had no idea that I should look for links on the user's userpage. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• All I saw was that there is a Flickr user who claims to be called "Yanping Soong" and a Wikipedia user who claims to be called "Yanping Nora Soong". I found no evidence that the accounts belong to the same person, and per WP:IOWN, we need actual evidence that the accounts belong to the same person. The file information page contained no information about User:Nyttend's edit to your user page, so I had no idea that I should look for edits by Nyttend on your user page. Nyttend's edit does seem to be sufficient evidence that the accounts belong to the same person, though. To avoid problems in the future, consider listing all files on Flickr under a free licence (cc-by, cc-by-sa or cc-zero). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ooh, I don't like this edit summary: "This photo is dual-licensed. I simply don't want most flickr users to know that it is free." That... kinda bothers me, that the motivation here is purely commercial. I mean, we provide the OTRS process so people can donate works they'd licensed elsewhere. Come on. You've got 16 file uploads. It's not like you've donated a collection of 10,000 (or even 1000) images. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, no the motivation is not commercial. I simply don't want to have to change the license on Flickr. There's no rule that says I can't use a free license for my photograph on Wikipedia, and a restrictive license on Flickr, if I've already established my identity. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  Then send an email to OTRS for your 16 uploads. I see no compelling reason that this case is different than the thousands of other uploads of previously published works that happen constantly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  Uploading something to Flickr (which I do to back stuff up to the cloud) really should not be called "publishing" something. I have not published it or submitted it to a literary or artistic journal. In any case, according to User:Nyttend, "Since you've confirmed your identity, we don't need OTRS permission". Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  Posting something to Flickr where it is publicly viewable is very definitely publication in the eyes of copyright law, which is what we are concerned with. BethNaught (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Wikipedia considers it publication (as does copyright law, but that's another matter entirely). We offer you a simple, straightfoward method of handling that problem. Once again, I see no compelling reason to exempt you from the regular procedures that protect Wikipedia from people who upload the works of others claiming ownership. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  OTRS was designed for new contributors without established history, not from already active members of the community. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  I'd expect to get my uploads tagged for speedy if it'd been uploaded elsewhere previously. Same as anyone else. OTRS is for everyone who publishes things in multiple places. If changing the copyright status on 16 Flickr pages is too damaging to your business, you have the alternative option of sending one e-mail to OTRS listing the files and donating them. Respectfully, we can't muck around with copyright stuff. There's just too much at stake. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, sure Stefan could have looked at your user page, but Stefan is in no way obligated to- if you were uploading 1000s of images; there's going to be a chance that some reviewer gets the wrong end of the stick. I think however that Stefan, the point is that Yanping wants to sell her photos that are on Flickr, and so doesn't want them under CC, which sort of defeats the whole point of a free license. Also, if you're only "donating" (in the loosest way possible) a couple of photos at a time, just email OTRS- just use a boilerplate template each time. Tt doesn't take that much effort. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  It actually does because it requires opening many different tabs and keeping track of multiple clipboard items when making multiple uploads. Just because it seems easy for you, doesn't mean it is easy for me. Have some compassion for those with intense anxiety and ADHD, please. :) Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who sees Yanping Nora Soong assuming bad faith in this initial filing? Claiming white privilege and systemic bias is incredibly uncalled for and not the sort of dialog one starts when one wishes to call out a minor issue such as this. --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly I was trying to look past it in case there was something we actually could help OP with. But... since it all boils down to being unwilling or unable to send one email or change the copyright status of 16 images on Flickr, I'm starting to seriously doubt there's anything we can do. The whole commercial nature of it all makes me a lot less inclined to support creating some kind of exception, even assuming we can. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've closed these PUFs. Proof has been provided on Flickr that the two accounts are operated by the same person, and nothing more is required by our policies or those of Commons. It's definitely more convenient if you give a link on the image pages, but there's no requirement to add one. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, this is what, the third? Fourth time this has come up. So clearly the way Yanping Nora Soong wants to work is incompatible with how wikipedia works with regards to previously published works. Multiple people on multiple occasions have explained what they need to do to prevent the situation happening, and they do not wish to do it, at this point its frankly their problem. While your closure solves the immediate problem (as when it came up, closures did previously) nothing is being done by Yanping Nora Soong to prevent the disruption and work they are causing others by not following some simple instructions on how to upload and label their images (as per the various people above). They will keep showing up here and making spurious complaints. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Nyttend. And let's be clear: that there was harassment here somehow, possibly as the result of white privilege or whatever, is a ludicrous claim. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @User:Drmies, you want harassment. HTH, HAND. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• The problem seems to be solved with respect to the Flickr files (but if links are not added to file information pages, other file patrollers are likely going to list the user's files on PUF again in the future). Note that there was one image, File:Speeding J train on the Williamsburg Bridge.jpg, which does not come from Flickr but from the takenbynora.com website, and we are still missing evidence that this website belongs to the Wikipedia user. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  uhhh I describe myself pretty clearly here... Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Far as I can see, there's nothing in that page which tells us the owner of that page has a wikipedia account called Yanping Nora Soong, or a Flickr account called Yanping Soong so I don't see how it helps resolve the issue. The description there is very similar to what you've said here and Flickr, but I can say I'm Barack Hussein Obama, born in Haiwaii, president of the USA since 2009 on my userpage. We actually have special policies covering possible imitation of famous people, but for copyright issues considering the importance we get it right, it's pretty much the same thing. We require confirmation that you are indeed who you say you are. In this case the owner of the website (which doesn't seem to have been confirmed) and the owner of the Flickr account (which seems to have been confirmed) and anywhere else you're simultaneously uploading the photos. It doesn't really matter how long you've been around. If you are unwilling to mention a Flickr or wikipedia account on the public page, you could always make a special page and put it in robots.txt and but noindex and similar tags in it so pretty much no search engine will have it. I think there are other ways of confirming the link via OTRS. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have encountered Yanping Nora Soong when somebody was hell bent on removing File:Speeding J train on the Williamsburg Bridge.jpg from an article, and while I constructively questioned its purpose in the article, I decided that consensus for it to stay was fine. Given the rough ride they have had on Wikipedia so far, and how image copyrights seem to be diametrically opposed to how people in the real world think (from my experience, at least), and assuming what they've written on their user page is true, I'm prepared to cut them a little slack as they're new and have been shat on a bit (though I'll remind them that Wikipedia is not therapy). Does anyone have any evidence that Nora didn't take the photographs? And why can't people who can work their way through the myriad of choices presented in Category:Wikipedia file copyright templates work with them to sort this out? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that YNS is not a new user, but a WP:FRESHSTART. They have not (so far as I know) revealed their previous ID, and wishes not to do so. Because of this, we really have no idea of how much experience YNS has. BMK (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't wish to associate myself with my male username. Not even people at my current workplace know, just a few people at HR (I had to disclose because I had to work out kinks with e-Verify). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To try and reduce problems, I've added a note to each image which mentions it's previously published on Flickr adding the info from the userpage confirming the link. If any of her other photos don't already mention Flickr, I haven't tagged them. I obviously couldn't do anything with the takenbynora.com images.

While I agree it would be ideal if the Yanping Nora Soong would licence their images on Flickr the same way, or at least permanently mention the link on their Flickr page, I presume the archive.org cache is sufficient. After all, we don't delete images where the editor changes the licencing status on Flickr in the future provided we have confirmation that it was once freely licenced (admin or bot check). And if there's no doubt the Flickr account belongs to the editor her, nor any doubt they are willing to freely licence their uploads here, I don't see it's an issue even if it isn't something to be encouraged.

I do agree if Yanping is going to continue to publish images elsewhere without freely licencing them in the other sites or at least providing the info in the uploads demonstrating the link to their account elsewhere there is a risk this will happen again. Perhaps Yanping should develop a standard template either directing people to the confirmatory links or directing people to their user page which they add to all their uploads to reduce the possibility of confusion.

And it has nothing to do with white privilege and systemic bias. I'm pretty sure every reference to my user name online is me (but I'm not going to confirm any specific instance so since I could be wrong it's still WP:Outing to link anything else to me :-P). So to with every reference to my real name. But whichever name I use here, it doesn't mean that's sufficient evidence for copyright reasons that an account elsewhere belongs to me.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit War at Lavdrim Muhaxheri

KewinRozz is has been in multiple edit wars and POV-pushing at Lavdrim Muhaxheri -- most recently today with Zoupan. There have been multiple attempts by various well intention and experienced editors to bring corrective action and guidance to this editor - including OhNoitsJamie, TU-nor and later me. I first became involved last month when a question was raised over at the helpdesk. He claims POV issues with the article Lavdrim Muhaxheri, while experienced editors point to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This editor has insisted that it is OR and SYNTH the other-way-around, along with claiming vandalism. The primary editor of the article who is involved with Kewin is Zoupan. Several editors believe that we have an issue of WP:CIR and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on. Since the editor continues to edit the article and talk around policies, attempts to wikilaywer to get his points across, I suggest a block on this user. The last block was from about a month ago, and I believe it was for 72 hours. During that time he appealed the block twice and was declined for failing to get the point of the block. Further correspondence since the block continues to reinforce that he doesn't get the point. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Serious CIR and IDHT issues. User has no intention of reading and understanding policies and guidelines. Insisting on OR and SYNTH, while [hilariously] claiming it is the other way around. He has an answer to everything, only the answers are always proven wrong. There are lengthy discussions at the article talk page and the user's talk page.--Zoupan 23:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

KewinRozz has been blocked for 2 weeks for making yet another pointless weasel-word edit that he's been warned about on numerous occasions. Given that KR does not seem to be capable of communicating in a coherent manner, I'd support an indef block, though I'd like to get a little more feedback on that from other editors first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I am holding out just a bit more presumption of good faith might come of this. I was going to propose 2 weeks, glad to see that is inline what you were thinking... Lets see if this will help him get the point. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am leaning towards indef, as he is way too proud to cooperate, continously incoherent, and to be frank, incomprehensive. CIR would be justifiable. However, seeing that Tiggerjay is willing to give him a chance, I'd say definitely an indef topic-ban at Lavdrim Muhaxheri, give him a last chance after this block (and hopingly reading through the guidelines and policies) to be constructive at other places. If the same old behaviour continues, indef.--Zoupan 00:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well said, perhaps a topic ban if we need to revisit this after the block expires. Perhaps a ban on all things IS related, and direct him to contribute on a completely different realm to see if that would help him find a better footing. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! I got jabbed in the eye just in going through a few of KewinRozz's edits. There are some issues that don't seem likely to go away, even after s/he has had time out to cool their heels. Badly written WP:OPEDs about reliable sources?! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks is a fair choice. That will also give me time to rebuild my capasity for assuming good faith, which was beginnning to wear a bit thin. As for topic ban, it is worth noting that he never ever has editied any other article than Lavdrim Muhaxheri, as far as I can see. So there is actually no base for a broader ban, but a ban for Lavdrim is definitely a possibility. --T*U (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, one TBAN (if necessary) at a time. It seems unlikely that s/he will return a reformed editor. At the least, a bit of time and room to breathe is a treat for worn out regulars. The unfortunate part is that it shouldn't have to come down to band-aid measures. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My goodness, going through the last several threads on that talk page was quite possibly one of the most painful experiences I've ever put myself through on Wiki. The level of incompetence exhibited on the talk page is staggering. An indef block for a litany of alphabet soup is certainly reasonable. Blackmane (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Alleged BLP vios on Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's currently back-and-forth editing regarding an alleged BLP violation on Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. This talk page has been the cite of extensive discussion about the use of the label "individualist feminist" in the lead. I personally do not see any BLP violations (and think this is a blatant misapplication of BLP), but given that the people involved are regulars and the article in question is a constant source of contention, can an admin please review this? This is quite ridiculous all around. (On a side note, I should have just come here instead of reverting, I admit).

Edits in question:

• Comment by MarkBernstein
• Quoting of comment by Motsebboh
• Redaction of both by Ryk72
• Restoration of comments by Binksternet
• Redaction of comments by Arkon
• Restoration of comments by EvergreenFir (me)
• Redaction of comments by 107.107.61.197
• Reply by MarkBernstein

All mentioned individuals were notified of this ANI on their user talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by MarkBernstein
• Redaction by 128.4.140.76
• Reinsertion of redacted material, including as section heading by MarkBernstein
• Redaction & section header change by 128.175.185.8
• Comment by MarkBernstein
• Redaction by Ryk72

Additional comments & BLP redactions - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I thank EvergreenFir for raising this question here. I believe that claiming that a living person is viewed by "most scholars" as maintaining a "cynical ruse", without reference to sourcing for that claim, is a clear BLP violation. And that I made a good faith single redaction of that information on that basis. I would have no issues with the information, including a re-introduction of the material, if it were reliably sourced; nor with continued discussion of the main point in that section on the understanding that the redacted information had been mentioned. (Talking around the point, rather than directly to it). After some searching, I note that the apparent "source" backing the information is another Wikipedia article, Individualist feminism, which does not explicitly make this claim about the living person in question. I further note that of the sources used at that page - one, an NPR transcript, does not mention the living person; and the second, a WaPost review, does not mention the claim. I ask the administrators here to note my strong history of contribution at WP:BLPN, which I contest has been without fear, favour or partisanship. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The comment by Mark Bernstein was poorly judged, whether or not it violated WP:BLP. I thought of cautioning him about it myself, but Ryk72 removed it before I could do that. It may be that many sources consider Sommers anti-feminist, but the particular characterization of Sommers Mark Bernstein offered appears to be his personal view of her only. I doubt you would find such language in any reliable source. While one can reasonably discuss criticism of article subjects that appears in reliable sources, BLP talk pages are not forums for expressing one's personal contempt for them. This edit by Binksternet was thus also ill-advised. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• First, wrong noticeboard. Second, yes, you should not have restored it. The unsupported ramblings of an editor about a BLP do not belong on the talk page. Good lord, his justification starts with "According to Wikipedia".... Arkon (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I did not notice that quote, WP:ATW is free as a shortcut to Wikipedia:According to Wikipedia if anyone is interested. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So long as we are discussing the Sommers article, I should note that the article was recently semi-protected by KrakatoaKatie following a request from Binksternet. By now three people (one of them me) have observed at WP:RFPP that that was a questionable decision; Binksternet looks to be involved in an editing dispute with IPs at Christina Hoff Sommers and agains an unfair advantage through article semi-protection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yikes, that's awful. The IP's have been nothing but constructive from what I can tell. Arkon (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I agree with some of the edits the IPs have made - but participating in an edit war, as both the IPs and several editors with user accounts are doing - is disruptive regardless. The article arguably needs full protection, not semi-protection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but I have to think you haven't seen a real edit war if this is one :) Arkon (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

See the edit by Fyddlestix here. See IP 128.175.185.8 revert the edit here. See MarkBernstein revert the reversion here. See DHeyward revert the revert of the reversion here. See Binksternet revert that here. See an IP revert in turn here. I could continue; there have been several more reverts of the same content since then. Looks like an edit war to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand, sorry, just used to more contentious war's I suppose. Arkon (talk)

A couple points: this had been just discussed at BLP/N last week here [54] where it was pointed out trying to quantify the number of scholars that considered Sommers as "anti-feminist" as "most" was not proper. Also, any activity on Sommers page should be considered under the sanctions of the GamerGate arbcom case (she is well known as having spoken out against the mainstream opinion on GG, for example, as a panelist at the August 2015 SPJ Airplay event). --MASEM (t) 21:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I will continue. See PeterTheFourth continue to revert over the same content here, and Motsebboh revert him here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Additional comments & redactions added to the list above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Bob Ezrin and the spate of vandalism

Hello Admins! THe page for Bob Ezrin was vandalized starting at 4:48 UTC Feb 24th. In real life, the real Bob Ezrin [55] Kanye West. I believe a group of people decided to vandalize the page just to mock Bob Ezrin. MOst of the vandalism came from IP addresses, while osme came from registered users such as this edit by Wazfa. [56]

ALso this revision [57] by Shaboooya.

Winterysteppe (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• It was protected until the 27th by Bbatsell. An editor with an older account has vandalized it since then, but the current protection should take care of the new users coming in to vandalize. (IE, new and non-autoconfirmed editors cannot edit the page.) If it gets particularly bad we can lock it down to where only admins can edit, but we'd have to wait a little bit before doing that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• It might be worthwhile to protect the talk page if we get more requests like this. So far it's basically a wait-and-see at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User still blocked, does he have to wait till 2019?

User:LouisAlain, who received an IPBE on 10 April 2015 (after switching to a new ISP, he discovered his new IP address was hardblocked), and who lost it again a few days ago, was given the advice: After reviewing your account, it looks like you are using a web host to edit. If you disable the web host and edit through your normal service provider, you should not have any issues.

• He wrote, "I find out that I've been blocked until... 11 February 2019". There are five range blocks that end on that day, the most likely being 88.190.64.0/24, hard blocked two weeks ago (11 febr), with an expiry time of 3 years, as {{webhostblock}}.
• looking up 88.190.64.0 gives us: Dedibox SAS; Hosting Customers; http://www.dedibox.fr/; created: 2011-07-14T16:45:46Z
• The listed website redirects to www.online.net/en, which offers dedicated hosting options. But that website also tells us that they no longer use the 88.190.0.0/16 range link (link mentioned on his talk page last year).
• A google search for "Plages d'IP FAI" returns a post on a french forum where an admin lists French ISPs with their IP ranges (based on info from the Hurricane Electric website (link). 88.160.0.0/11 belongs to LouisAlain's ISP: Free (ISP).
• If I'm not mistaken, 88.160.0.0/11 equals 88.160.0.0 to 88.191.255.255, which includes the blocked range 88.190.64.0/24

If this is the reason why LouisAlain can't edit (I could be wrong), it wouldn't be the first time ISP ranges are hard blocked as "webhostblock", see for example User talk:Yellowcard.
BTW: When did the open proxy policy change to include all (potential) webhost addresses? The template message reads: "web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia", but links to Wikipedia:Open proxies (which doesn't mention web hosts). At the moment more than 5 million IPv4 addresses are hard blocked for 3 to 7 years, based on {{webhostblock}} and {{colocationwebhost}}. Prevalence 06:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The lack of response here is concerning. A user who as far as anybody knows has been editing in good faith on several language wikis has now been blocked for five days. LouisAlain (a native French-speaker) has 70,000 edits over the last four+ years and there's no trace of any problems. He was granted IP-block exemption in April 2015 to resolve being unable to edit when he switched ISP to Free (ISP). Five days ago, his IPBE was removed and he is now unable to edit. Mike V, who removed the IPBE, believes that LouisAlain is editing from a webhost and has suggested that LouisAlain "disable the web host and edit through your normal service provider". But LouisAlain replies that he is "completely unable to tinker with anything associated with data processing procedures". There are three possibilities that I can see:

1. LouisAlain is deliberately editing through a webhost and is maliciously pretending that he isn't for reasons unknown.
2. LouisAlain has somehow managed to accidentally configure his internet access so that he is editing through a webhost and doesn't understand how to fix that.
3. Mike V's information that implies LouisAlain's IP is a webhost IP is wrong, and LouisAlain is actually editing normally from his ISP.

I have to say that both AGF and LouisAlain's record would tend to rule out the first option. I would be amazed if the second option were correct, as in 30-odd years of making online connections, I've never known anybody manage to accidentally create a connection that went via a webhost. So what's the chance that Mike's information is wrong? It's the likeliest option in my humble opinion, particularly given the information supplied above by Prevalence.

Given all of that I'd like to ask for support for restoring LouisAlain's IPBE. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel I've been ignoring this message. I've been quite busy IRL, as well as responding to others on Wiki and email. Per the privacy policy, I can't provide the specifics of LouisAlain's ISP(s). All I can do is reiterate that he is editing through a web host and that if he disables it, he should be able to edit just fine. If you are uncertain about my findings, feel free to ask another checkuser. Mike V • Talk 22:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I gave that impression, Mike, but we are blocking a productive editor for no reason in my opinion and it does not reflect well on us. LouisAlain's ISP is a matter of public record, as is the fact that the very French ISP in question now uses IP ranges that were previously allocated to webhosts. I don't believe that a checkuser can reliably identify an edit as coming from a webhost, other than by matching the IP against a list of webhosts (if I wanted to edit maliciously via a webhost, I could spoof any other information in the http request that a CU can detect). If that list is inaccurate - and there is evidence to suggest that is the case here - then we block a user who is editing via a normal ISP. It's noticeable that LouisAlain is free to edit on all other Wikis; are you suggesting that the checkusers on fr-wp, for example, are allowing him to edit there via a webhost? --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries, tone is always hard to convey over the internet. :) Again, I can't comment on the ISP(s) provided. It could be right, it could be wrong, or somewhere in between. However, the information from multiple venues shows that it's a web host. I can't comment on the technical data on the French Wikipedia, as I don't have CU access there. (Nor have fr.wiki CUs shared it with me.) It's worth pointing out that the French Wikipedia permits the use of IPBE for more reasons than we do. Though, LouisAlain does not have IPBE on fr.wiki. Mike V • Talk 00:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

So I'm wrong in thinking that he is using ran75-5-88-190-64-31.fbxo.proxad.net? Because that's a freebox modem (with built in web server, RAS, router, WiFi hotspot for other freenet customers, etc..), not a web host. Prevalence 07:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram

There seems to have been an onslaught of self-promoting articles created by staff of the Indian institute for higher learning Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram. Can anything be done about this? So far I've CSD tagged:

• George Kulanagara CMI
• Thomas Muppathinchira
• Roy Palatty
• Alex Thannippara
• Kurian kachappilly

There may be a couple more as well, logged in my CSD log, but unfortunately I can't see what's been deleted so cannot be sure if any red links were once articles of this nature. However, these are the articles which are repeatedly being created by different editors (Kurian kachappilly is now waiting for an admin response for the third time in 24 hours). Is there any sort of range block or any other means of preventing this spam of non-notable educators? Azealia911 _talk 17:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted the ones here, found a couple of others. I gave one of them a final warning for disruption after he tried to spam your talk page. Katie^talk 19:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry + repeated violation of wiki deletion and revert policy

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

Karelgott60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

158.195.218.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• [58]
• [59]
• [60]

This page has been numerously time deleted on wiki after reaching a consensus on the first time with the several users, who show all signs of sockpuppetry, keep reverting it back and removing either bot or user deletion templates. Please investigate the matter and consider IP-wide ban. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have G4'ed the article, but you should open a case at WP:SPI to deal with the alleged sock-puppets. PS: Took the liberty of correcting the template used to generate the list at the top. Favonian (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sequel: temporarily blocked Vodnafajka for repeatedly recreating the Perny article in spite of warnings. Article salted. Favonian (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

‎M briglia05 disrupting alphabet articles

This editor apparently has a very own opinion on how the names of the letters of the Latin alphabet are spelled in English. Articles like W, R, J, H and so on (some of the ones he has most recently edited) have these names sourced from well-known dictionaries, so this editor's unsourced changes were repeatedly reverted by me and other editors.

I previously warned him and he had seemed to stop (but did not respond to the warning); he recently resumed and I warned him again, but today he is continuing, despite another general warning by Lambiam. I also consulted with Mr. Granger, who's always keeping an eye on these articles and has, like me, been reverting this editor.

Addendum: just as I was done writing this, the editor messaged me on my talk page. I'm afraid that's still not a convincing explanation for the edits and this has escalated too much: M briglia05, come on, you can't just keep reverting multiple editors without sourcing your changes and while using spurious canned edit summaries like "Fixing a typo", even after you get multiple warnings on your talk page. LjL (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reviewing the editor's contributions, I'm hard pressed to see how the editor is here to build an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I can see some seemingly constructive edit, like this small addition, and this recent one would be sensible except for the edit summary, while this change seems misguided but he could have thought he was correcting a scientific inaccuracy. All I know for sure is that he needs to engage in communication and stop making serial unsourced changes, and this board seemed the only way to seriously attract his attention at this point. LjL (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at their edits I get the feeling that this is a problem with competence. One guess – just a guess, but in line with the character of the edits and talk page responses – is that the "05" in the username is their year of birth. So they may not see what the problem is – which then is itself a problem; competence is required and we have no remedial programs for holding the hands of problem editors.  --Lambiam 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Posting of Talk on Article page

Being new to wikipedia I had considerable problems with my first article. I persisted until it was acceptable. During that time an editor became extremely agitated with me as I removed his edits. This was simply because I didn't understand. A lot of it was happening while I was still writing and I thought I failed to save my work. Anyway, the main problem was with references. I was entering them as I had been instructed by a Sandbox editor and didn't realise what was happening when some were changed and I deleted the changes. I was twice told I was now on my own! All problems were due to my being new to the system. It took me a while to even realise what 'view history' meant. Anyway, all of this sent me on a bad course with this particular editor. With the help of other editors I finally got through. However, when the article was posted he transferred some of the dialogue from my User Talk page to the Talk page on the article. This dialogue of course reflects the struggle I had to get the article completed but I maintain it should not be there in public view as it has nothing to do with the subject. I have asked him to delete it from here but refuses to and told me to contact admin. I have checked through numerous entries and do not find User Talk posted on the final article anywhere.

I would be very grateful if you would remove this. The article is Feargus Hetherington. I have since improved as will be seen when my Joseph Swensen article is posted shortly. I have also completed verification on Gareth Williams (composer). I wish to continue work now that I know what to do but I would be grateful if this copying from my original user page could be removed. Why should it be of interest to anyone reading the article about a musician? Thank you Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013, you have posted this same question at both the Teahouse question & answer page and at an administrative page there. People are generally helpful on Wikipedia and we are mostly glad to help new users. There is no reason however for you to post the same thing in multiple places. It is actually a policy violation (WP:FORUMSHOPPING) and it is a waste of other editors time. Everyone here is a volunteer. Please remember that and respect the other editor's time. Teahouse was the right place for your question. John from Idegon (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The editor in question told me to contact Admin to have it deleted. I wrote to Teahouse to find out how to approach Admin and then found a way. I am sorry. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

None of what is on Talk:Feargus Hetherington seems to have been moved from anywhere else, except that the page itself has been moved (renamed) from Draft talk:Feargus Hetherington when the article submission was accepted and created, as is apparently normal practice. I don't think that anything on the talk page reflects badly on Hetherington or yourself or anyone else, so it would be easiest just to forget about it, because almost no-one bothers reading Wikipedia talk pages. (Even if they should.) I am not an administrator but it is not clear what administrative action is needed here. MPS1992 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Mikedonald711

Mikedonald711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated posting of unsourced (per WP:CITE - [61][62][63][64]) and poorly-written material (per WP:STYLE - [65][66][67]), as well as a recent hoax article for a non-existent TV station (whose AfD nomination is archived here) and the addition of similar hoax material (per WP:HOAX - [68]). Has repeatedly been warned against adding unsourced material and advised to improve his writing style, but he has ignored all warnings. Creativity-II (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by Klortho at my talk page

Klortho, with whom I have had an editing dispute at Stephen Jay Gould, is harassing me on my talk page. He has left several ridiculous messages there, asking me what he should call me, as he apparently refuses to use my user name. I removed Klortho's messages, as they were time-wasting nonsense, and told him he was not welcome on my talk page, but he reverted me. See here, here, and here. Someone please advise this user to stop it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The most recent nonsense/harassment-type message Klortho left me can be seen here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've never been in this situation before. As the user above indicated, we've been having a pretty acrimonious dispute on the Gould page. Everything I just wrote on his talk page was written in good faith. FxC calls it harassment and "ridiculous", but why is it ridiculous for me to refuse to indulge his vanity by using his ridiculous username? As I mentioned on in the dispute, his actions have shown him to be anything but a "knowledge creator", and the fact that this latest incident has escalated so fast, I think is ample proof of that. I am not as experienced as some here, but I thought that in general, there was a policy against reverting talk page edits. I was also taken aback when he wrote "you are not welcome here" -- am I wrong that even individual user talk pages don't "belong" to those users? *User pages*, I could understand would be somewhat of a different story, but talk pages, I'd think, are not "his" in the sense that he could just banish me and revert my comments, at his whim. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Klortho (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your refusal to use my user name, and asking me what you should call me instead, is puerile behavior. It is a waste of my time, and I will not indulge you. After I reverted you the first time (which I had a perfect right to do), you should have taken a hint and stopped leaving messages on my talk page. It shows a great deal about your lack of seriousness as an editor that you would waste time trying to discuss nonsense with me, instead of actually addressing the substance of the dispute at Stephen Jay Gould. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I really have to say, that I am at a loss as to how to deal with this person. It's been impossible to have any constructive dialog with him whatsoever, and I have tried. Klortho (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Really. So you consider it perfectly reasonable to waste another user's time by talking about his user name, and edit warring on his talk page, instead of addressing more substantive issues, such as the content dispute at Stephen Jay Gould? I can't wait to see what the larger Wikipedia community's response to that will be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

[I made this edit at the same time FxC wrote his, above.] Okay, I found it: WP:TPO: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." FxC was very quick to assume bad faith on my part, and delete my comment. And, I'd add, I didn't put it on the Gould talk page, because it was a private question, and nothing to do with the content of that article. Klortho (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not edit your comments to change their meaning. I removed them, which I had every right to do. Your "private question" was harassing, puerile, time-wasting nonsense, as already noted. You might want to read WP:REMOVED: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Your "private question" was harassing, puerile, time-wasting nonsense," -- that's actually not for you to decide. Klortho (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I can of course decide how I see your messages on my talk page, and remove them if I judge them to be harassment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"I removed them, which I had every right to do." The way I read [WP:TPO], the never is indeed in reference to editing or moving to change its meaning, but should not still applies: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Klortho (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You've already been told that what you're quoting applies to the talk pages of articles, not to user talk pages. I quoted the rule regarding user talk pages, WP:REMOVED, and you ignored it. I'd call that disingenuous. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

FKC is correct. See WP:UP#CMT. You can remove comments by others from your own user talk page. Enough of this nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting an indefinite block for user Wikihil123

Wikihil123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Whatever the editor's interests or skills, I think it's been proven that they can't continue to contribute without seriously detracting. The sourcing is ridiculous, if not fraudulent. Based on my recent talk page comments, I'd like to pick up from the previous ANI discussion. Willondon (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, wow, this alone almost deserves a WP:CIR block. Like, I seriously cannot comment on it without violating WP:NPA, and for that reason have not yet pulled the trigger. The attempted justification of it leaves me with very little hope. But yeah, citing a youtube vid of someone else's grandmother's funeral that happened a year after the death being cited for, combined with the other false citations you've found as well as most of his other edits being reverted by different editors, all have me seconding the call for WP:CIR block. However, because of how flummoxed I am, I'm considering the possibility that I'm overreacting to one (hellova) mistake and so won't carry it out myself until there's more consensus or I see more posts that have me banging my head on my desk. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Yeah, considering this is more of the same after the ANI a month ago, I think it's time for an indef. Drmies declined an indef at that time, but I think this seals the deal, especially when the response to the current ANI notification is "just want to how people what is going on with deceased people afterwards was showing a real references we seen" (whatever that means). -- Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef per WP:CIR. Thomas.W ^talk 08:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. After looking through this user's contribs, as well as the many attempts by others to assist the user and correct the issue with supplying reliable sources, this appears to be the next viable option. I really do hate showing people the door (especially due to WP:CIR), but sometimes it just has to be done in order for it to prevent further disruption to the project. This appears to be a case where this is necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked - Ok, after goofing off on Imgur, double checking with a non-editor friend who is basically going "WP:AGF is a suicide pact, everywhere" for Lent, and napping just to be really sure I'm good and calm, I was still fairly agape looking at Wikihil123 citing the video for a year-late funeral featuring the wrong method. Yes, we make mistakes, but their response to that mistake being pointed out amounted to a verbose "nuh-uh" at best and a lie at worst. Between that and the above responses, I don't think I'm overreacting. Their behavior since their last block has not improved in any way and seems to have gotten worse in some ways. The conversations at User_talk:Wikihil123#February_2016 indicate a terminal lack of clue, whatever their willingness to try harder may be. The only non-insulting assumption I can make is that we are dealing with a primary schooler preoccupied with funerals. If another admin thinks this user isn't hopeless, I'm not going to wheel-war if they reduce the block or even unblock them, but I'd like an explanation. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Persistent changing of piped links by 142.105.197.42

This IP likes to change wikilinks into piped WP:EASTEREGGs that, for example, point to pov forks ("x view of y") instead of the subject itself. IP has been warned numerous times here, here, and here, but seems deaf to our warnings. Example diffs: [69], [70], [71], and the latest such edit. Pretty much everything in the IP's contribution repertoire consitutes this type of editing. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat?

This edit by IP 79.17.164.12 appears to be something resembling a legal threat. This is of course globally-locked indef-blocked editor Alec Smithson, who has kept up a steady stream of nuisance IP edits since he was blocked (diffs on request, or see the history of the various articles listed here). If anyone has any useful suggestion as to how that stream could be slowed or stopped I'd be grateful – neither blocking the constantly-changing IP addresses nor semi-protecting all the articles would seem to be practical. Anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The edit by itself didn't make sense to me, but looking at the edit summary of these edits (in order) - [72], [73], [74], [75] - I would constitute this as a legal threat, yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a legal threat at all, but the text definitely could create a chilling effect on the article. KoshVorlon 12:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Only the true

Now do not worry. Now we don't open a legal threat yet, we ask to write the true and check the real resources without heavy defamation that we checked before. Maybe you don't understand exactly in Italian language and what was write in the resources and notes. In fact, even earlier sources told different things from what was reported before from User:Justlettersandnumbers. So now you have some resources and you can check about. Please pay close attention to every word, because this was one of the most important judges of Italian Contemporary history, loved by everyone today, Magistrate of the Supreme Court and President of the Court of Milan. And is a very sensitive topic also today, very, where you must thoroughly study the history for 40 years. No input, without the prior written in a discussion though Talk page. Why are you not aware of the facts which should cover 40 years of studies. There are reliable sources when viewed as a whole for decades in the " Corriere della Sera ", the Italian national newspaper whose archives today (payment version) are available for 150 years, free to check about. But then again carefully. Please open a Talk and discussion, as provided in the Regulation and policy of Wikipedia. Open a discussion if you have doubts and calmly we can answer any queries. His Excellency President Carlo Biotti has always been the supreme court to which we aspire in legal way, led to dialogue, attainment of truth and justice. Best Regards --79.17.164.12 (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)